[8] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Cygnus / Alternet dispute has settled down
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jqj@hogg.cc.uoregon.edu)
Tue Oct 16 16:34:03 1990
To: com-priv@psi.com
Cc: Craig Partridge <craig@nnsc.nsf.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 16 Oct 90 12:18:18 -0400.
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 12:32:31 -0700
From: jqj@hogg.cc.uoregon.edu
Craig argues, I think correctly, that "acceptable use" on NSFnet (and by
extension elsewhere on the Internet) is governed by a meta-policy of:
your local govt bureaucrat wants to allow you to do the "right
thing." Unfortunately, govt rules/procedures/regulations suggest that if
pushed, said bureaucrat will have to deny you permission. In such a
scenario, a good person will give you the weakest possible version
of the party line possible -- making it clear that, while it ain't
quite kosher, if you discretely do what you want, wet noodle punishment is
probably all you'll get.
I've certainly done the same thing myself. What I think this misses, though,
is a perception that such a policy seriously hurts the Internet. A large
commercial user can't afford to accept this attitude -- their lawyers won't
let them do anything questionable, but they need to keep up with their
competitors, so they need clarity even if it keeps them from using the
net. And they need clarity to insure that some one of their employees won't
accidentally do anything questionable.
I don't know what the "right thing" is. I'm not even convinced any more that
it is in our interest to forbid "advertising on mailing lists" in general,
though I certainly agree that there are some/many mailing lists whose explicit
purposes would be ill-served by allowing advertising. As a counter example,
I think that the advertising that PSI and Alternet have been doing on this
mailing list has contributed to its usefulness. :-)
