Rich, Thanks for the nice confirmation. My dabbling in internet governance topics has taught me (I guess) that the real challenge is to eschew easy approaches such as shutting off sites as a remedy. The hard work is trying to come up with effective measures which are anything but take downs / blocking -- those should be an absolute last resort at the end of some well-defined and transparent process. Obviously at some extreme point a site has gone so rogue it's just an act of self-defense. But that's the extreme case and still needs a process even if an emergency, short-circuited process. But for sites which imagine themselves to be responsibly managed but fall down on that job sufficiently to merit a response -- my favorite saying in life: EVERYONE forgives themselves! -- there's a need to structure proportionate and effective responses to failings ranging from warnings to actions. And to define clearly what those failings are. For example everyone might not agree that letting 1% of their traffic be spam or otherwise malicious traffic without opposition is even a problem worth exerting effort over. Ok, is it 2%? 0.1%? What is the threshold we can all live with? Or is a percentage just a bad idea and it's the effect which needs to be measured and judged? I suspect a contractual approach might be more productive, as one example. There are other possibilities. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*