Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
Catherine Anne Foulston
cathyf at is.rice.edu
Mon Oct 16 21:50:50 UTC 1995
bmanning at ISI.EDU writes:
> > The AUP won't have much effect, but the after-effects will. Once the AUP
> > is announced we will get press coverage about it, any new Internet books
> > and articles will point out the rules of conduct on the Internet and
> > mention that breaking the rules could get you kicked out. All this will
> > make people aware that there ARE rules and that spam is not liked.
> > Publicity, publicity and more publicity.
> I've seen near zero coverage of RFC 1746, which covers
> AUP's on the Internet.
I think that's because it defines areas an AUP should cover rather
than defining any particular behavior as appropriate or not. It's
just not controversial enough. Now if you publish something that
the media can interpret as "Internet bans advertising!!!!" then
you'll see coverage. :-)
However, I don't believe publicizing an AUP will stop the kinds of
spam I've seen most recently. A well known AUP will stop the guy
who runs Amway out of his basement when he's not at his day job.
Even if he doesn't want to be a good citizen anyway, the threat
of losing his account will be a real threat. It will also stop
established companies that have a public image to worry about.
But it won't stop people like Canter & Siegel. A lot of the spams
I've seen lately don't even want you to respond via the Internet.
Why should they care if they lose their account? They'll just
get another one somewhere. It's just not enough of a threat, yet
it's probably the worst punishment an ISP can inflict.
I do think an AUP is a good idea anyway, because of the groups
that will be swayed by it and the things other than spam that
could be addressed. And I'm rather afraid that with legislation,
the cure would be worse than the disease.
Catherine Foulston cathyf at rice.edu Rice University Network Management
More information about the NANOG