Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Agreement - Disagreement - Discussion

["George Kirikos" <fastflux@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Marc Perkel <marc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Example:
>
> Marc: If we block X then we can shut down fakebank.com
> Wendy: But will that shut down free-tibet-monks.org?
> Joe: If we also test Y then that would protect free-tibet-monks.org
>
> Using this process we might eventually get to a consensus on some things
> that we all agree on. But it's the process of not agreeing at first that
> gets us there.

That sounds reasonable. X and Y should be purely technical
definitions/tests, not containing words like "malicious" or "illegal",
etc., as otherwise you get into the realm of human judgement. With X
and Y being predictable because there's a technical definition that
anyone can test themselves against, folks can govern their affairs
accordingly (either choosing to break the rules, and be shut down, or
choosing to stay within the rules).

e.g. a "rule" that a webhost might have as part of an antispam measure
might be "you shall send no more than 10 emails per hour." That's a
strictly technical definition. A rule like "you shall not send any
emails that are against the interests of the USA" is not a *technical*
rule, but requires human judgement.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
www.LEAP.com