[145991] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Fri Oct 28 15:06:39 2011
In-Reply-To: <62968.1319816515@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:05:17 -0400
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Pete Carah <pete@altadena.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:41 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:44:16 EDT, William Herrin said:
>> For our purpose, describing the Internet as a commons fundamentally
>> misunderstands its nature.
>
> You *do* realize that for all your nice "Thei Internet Is Not A Commons"
> ranting, the basic problem is that some people (we'll call them spammers)=
*do*
> think that (a) it's a commons (or at least the exact ownership of a given
> chunk is irrelevant), and (b) they're allowed to graze their sheep upon i=
t.
Squatters, trespassers and thieves always manage to find self-serving
justifications for their behavior. The theory that it's OK to take
from the faceless owner is not a new one, nor is it particularly
related to the concept of a commons.
>> The point is, at every step with the Internet there is always a
>> specific owner whose property is either being used with his permission
>> or abused against his wishes. At no point is it a commons.
>
> Try working the same example but using a stream flowing across your prope=
rty
> instead, that feeds into the reservior the municipal water supply draws f=
rom.
> Yes, you own your section of the stream, and the guy next door owns his
> section, and so on. =A0So the stream is not a commons - but the quality o=
f the
> water in it *is*.
You've picked an interesting analogy for the flow of data on the Internet.
If I dam up the stream on my side inducing my upstream neighbor's
property to flood, I can be sued and I *will* lose the lawsuit. My
action has willfully and directly damaged his property. Same if I
divert all the water and dry out my downstream neighbor's lake.
In more populous areas this sort of issue becomes sufficiently
contentious that the government simply takes the stream, defining it
as a "stormwater easement" and at that point, a regulated commons.
My house is sandwiched between a stormwater easement under the back
yard and a sanitary sewer easement under the front. I know far more
about the legal issues around moving water than I ever wanted to. Like
the fact that an areaway drain built in the 50's was typically
attached to the sanitary sewer in full compliance with the building
code, but the current building code forbids it and a judge will throw
the book at you even though post-ex-facto normally applies to old
construction.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com=A0 bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
