[ppml] ppml 2002-7

[Dr. Jeffrey Race]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:54:38 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>I'm not suggesting that it should be easy or incredibly likely to succeed,
>but there has to be a way to deal with the possibility of a grossly abusive
>ISP.  If there isn't a documented resolution process, it will invite
>litigation.  If there is a documented resolution process within the 
>community,
>the courts will generally take a dim view of efforts to circumvent it
>through litigation.
>
>I'm thinking something along the lines of creating a dispute resolution
>committee made up of members nominated by the ASO AC from ARIN members
>and confirmed by general vote (like the votes for ASO AC members).
>The committee could review filed grievances and make a binding ruling.
>
>Thoughts?

To extent relevant I'd like to look at how this issue relates to a
proposal I am hatching so as perhaps to include some guidance.  Please
see appended abstract which points to the URL where the current draft
resides and offer me any thoughts.

Jeffrey Race


      BEST CURRENT PRACTICE FOR DUTY OF CARE OF INTERNET RESOURCES
       Pre-release version 1.31    Draft date: February 13, 2003
           Drafted by Jeffrey Race   <jrace[at]attglobal.net>

            Current draft version (4,000 words) available at 
              <http://www.camblab.com/misc/univ_std.txt>

                                ABSTRACT

This document defines a Best Current Practice to minimize pollution of 
the Internet by various types of abuse, using the community's own measures
in the absence of effective legal, regulatory and technical measures.

The Internet's design and management were predicated on voluntary 
cooperation, self-imposed good behavior, and the non-profit 
motivational structure of custodians of Internet Resources extant at 
its inception. Current experience of constantly rising pollution
invalidates these formative assumptions and demands prompt and 
effective curative measures.   

Present anti-pollution measures fall under four generic headings: 
(1) self-directed good behavior; (2) legal sanctions  (3) technical 
measures (principally filtering) and (4) self-help defensive measures 
(principally blocklisting).  The first three have definitively failed and
will continue to fail for reasons specified in the document.  The fourth
is generally completely effective in warding off ingress of pollution and 
frequently results in reforming abuse enablers, but it has two major 
shortcomings: limited uptake due to fear of loss of competitive market 
position by early adopters, and sustained transmission outages 
("collateral damage").

In view of the failure of (1), (2) and (3) and the effectiveness despite 
shortcomings of (4), the document proposes to apply to the Internet the 
same rules society applies to all other resources to deter antisocial 
behavior viz. proper behavior requires clear published standards, 
standards entail accountability, accountability entails multiple modes
of enforceability, and enforceability entails traceability.  The 
document details procedures and implementing mechanisms based on this 
universal rule of human experience, while preserving present levels
of anonymity for deserving cases.  

Since both legal and technical measures have failed and will continue 
to fail, only the behavior modification method of stopping pollution 
remains, and the only proven effective method of behavior modification 
is withdrawal of internet resources of identity and connectivity to 
continue pollution.  Numerous tests have shown this sanction to work
equally well against both the wilful and the negligent to halt pollution 
immediately, where prior efforts at polite persuasion to follow best 
practice were ignored with impunity. 

The proposal thus innovates in four respects to halt Internet pollution:

 (1) It makes explicit that every custodian of internet resources is 
     responsible for preventing emission of pollution 

 (2) Adopting a simultaneous universal practice of withdrawal of internet 
      resources means that no provider will suffer competitive 
      disadvantage

 (3) The burden of pollution now falls on the polluter and his enabler 
      rather than on the victim, so conforming to the basic principle 
      used everywhere else in society to maintain justice and good order.

 (4) This Practice legitimates withdrawal of internet resources as the 
      only method proven effective in halting abuse.

The Practice is intended to apply at every level of allocation, 
registration and usage of internet resources including but not limited 
to RIRs, LIRs, ISPs, webhosting firms, backbone connectivity providers,
domain name registrars, and end-users.   It defines internet resources,
unsolicited bulk electronic messaging, and abuse, and specifies 
procedures progressively to sanction abuse after a period of public 
admonishment.

In effect, the proposal implements the "user pays" paradigm in a 
completely new and clever way, without requiring any complicated
metering technology all proposals for which have failed on issues of
complexity, backward compatibility, absence of adequate hardware,
and the need for universal adoption to be effective at all.

The document embodies the only set of measures now on offer which will
quickly end the spam menace internationally with no new legislation, 
and but small and transitory disruption, by moving from the discredited
"victim pays" model to the modern "polluting user pays" model.   Adoption 
will not only be cost-free for the Internet as a whole but will substantially
reduce the current economic burden of abuse.  It does this by transferring 
the economic burden from abuse victims to the polluters  and their enablers,
which is fair and feasible, and indeed the system used everywhere else in 
society.

As such the anticipated vigorous objections to adoption from some parties 
may be seen in advance as self-serving attempts to perpetuate the
discredited "victim pays" model by those now profiting from an environmental
polluter business model or by their accessories and enablers.