[gnso-rap-dt] Crossfire

[Roland Perry <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

When considering the various types of abuse (whether they be clearly 
illegal, or clearly just anti-social behaviour) I wonder if we are too 
strict with ourselves regarding efforts to exclude side effects.
Here's an example:

A car park for shoppers charges $1/hour for the first 4 hours, then 
$5/hour for the second 4 hours, to discourage shop and office workers 
from parking there all day. They also have a rule that you can't exit 
and re-enter (eg in your lunch break) and therefore only pay two lots of 
$4. That behaviour has been decided to be abusive.
But if someone visits a shop and halfway home remembers they forgot 
something, they can't return and park again, even paying $5/hr for a few 
minutes, because of the "no return" (same day) rule.
I'm going to call this kind of adverse outcome "crossfire" (or is there 
some other generally accepted word already in use)?
There are plenty of other rules which might reduce the crossfire, but 
this rule is a commonplace one and has presumably been selected because 
it allows a simple yes/no resolution to disputes: "Have you re-entered". 
And presumably the people who introduced these rules take the view that 
"nothing's perfect, and a simple to enforce rule with sufficient 
benefits for the majority, is good enough for us".
So I propose an extra column, to describe the circumstances of 
"crossfire", or if you like "legitimate activities that are in danger of 
being banned". Then we can show that they've been considered, and we 
might even be able to come to a consensus about the acceptable degree of 
crossfire for some of the categories.
A couple of obvious examples of crossfire:

Fast Flux / Akamai
Verified (and public) whois / FBI sting operation
--
Roland Perry