Dean Anderson <dean(a)av8.com>
>I'm not the only one concerned about coercion by the RBL. I know I'm not
>the only one concerned that the use of this coercion is capricious and
>unpredictable, and changes depending on Paul's moods and own interests.
>This was demonstrated quite clearly with the abandonment of rules to
>essentially blackmail NetSol into cooperation.
If the rules were bent in the NetSol case, it was bent in
NetSol's favor, not visa versa. Added tolerance in the
system rather than added rigidity is almost always a
positive step, and was in this case.
>The bottom line is that the RBL is a powerful hammer, and the person in
>control is inclined to act capriciously without concern for anyone else or
>even follow his own rules about their "permitted activities" as he
>originally defined them in the pages on qualification for the RBL.
This opinion is unsupported by evidence.
>Thats an operational problem. I think we either need to take the hammer
>away from Paul and give it to someone more even handed and fair about the
>application of the rules, or stop using the hammer altogether. The latter
>alternative is unlikely.
Which "we", Kemo Sabe? "we" have nothing to say about it.
It's entirely between Paul and the RBL user community.
They can always stop using it if Paul goes nuts.
And undoubtedly would. You have no more legal or moral
standing to intervene than a fish does, at this point.
>I have argued in the past that the RBL will not acheive its desired goals.
>And I don't think it will, or has. But I don't deny it certainly does have
>effective power to coerce and influence the industry. It can clearly move
>big players like earthlink and others.
>
>I can live by whatever rules as long as they are evenly applied to everyone
>else. I can't live with a powerful instrument like the RBL which is
>applied capriciously at Pauls apparent whim. I think others agree with this.
If you could, in fact, live with that, you would have no problem
with the RBL as it exists today.
It is obvious by your repeated unsubstantiated hits on the RBL,
Paul, and the RBL team that you have ulterior motives.
Those underlying motives are fine: healthy skepticism
about net interactions is a good thing. But you aren't
expressing reasonable, healthy criticism. You keep trying
to invent incidents of RBL abuse to justfy making RBL go away.
This is, frankly, tiresome and immature. With the lack of
substantiation, you're abusing nanog every time you bring
it up again. Paul going nuts and breaking his own rules
is not a current operational issue: it hasn't happened,
and there is an obvious, well documented solution if it does.
Until and unless that happens, all you're doing here is
further wrecking your own reputation.
-george william herbert
gherbert(a)crl.com I speak for a fish, some leap years.
