On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:05:31 -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote:

quote:

...

Well-managed, ethical members of the internet industry already conduct their businesses, successfully and profitably, according to the principles specified in the Practice. The proposed Practice simply aims to raise the entire industry to the level of today's best players.

I object to this wording; even without reading *any* other part of your document, I am already very cautious about it's contents simply because of the implication of your statement above. This is very much one of those political "you're either with us or against us" declarations.

So - if you don't so it 'our way' then you must be unethical and badly-managed. At least

Peter I don't blame you in the slightest for being cautious. However please look at the proposal and respond to its substance. In fact I include the above text, almost boilerplate now, because in earlier versions of the proposal floated on the lists of the various RIRs, I was scolded for offering a dreamlike proposal. I therefore now routinely state (the truth) that many firms, financially successful, operate exactly as I recommend. This is the potent counterexample to the oftheard complaint "We couldn't make any money if we had to crack down on abuse effectively". It's completely false, even though you often hear it. See <http://www.camblab.com/nugget/spam_03.pdf> for hard data. There seems to be some logical fallacy in your plaint. Ethical firm - successful, suppresses spam does not entail Does not suppress spam - unethical firm. There may be other reasons. Jeffrey Race