On Mon, 9 May 1994 15:25:39 GMT you said:
>On Mon, 9 May 94 Nick Laflamme <[log in to unmask]> said:
>
>> My whole point is exactly that there are no police and no common authority
>> in the Internet and in USENET.  Therefore, trying to find an EARN document
>> or some other document to cite to "offenders" is pointless.
>
>I do not agree, Sir. If EARN board of chiefs has taken the care to write
>down some guidelines they should be considered by every one and a follow
>up discussed.
 
CREN, NSFNet, JVNNet, and dozens of other nets out there are aware of the
EARN guidelines and have not embraced them.  These other networks have
implicitly or explicitly said that such activities are allowed, and some of
us would rather follow those rules.  Should all these nets reconsider?
 
Corollary:  the Chinese have very thoughtfully laid out a set of rules on
what can be said in person and in public.  Are the rest of us supposed to
consider our codes of human rights because the Chinese have so carefully
defined their (lack of) human rights?
 
>> Peer pressure produces netiquette, which is as close to rules as you can
>> get without authority.
>
>That is a kind of "arbitrary revolutionary justice" and has no legal
>grounds. Something to work must be legal and considered by the ones who
>know (the Seniors).
 
Are you claiming that EARN has legal grounds to deal with folks who don't
belong to EARN member institutions?  Can EARN sue me for tacky behavior?
 
There are lots of effective codes of conduct which don't have a legal
basis.  They're not illegal, nor are they part of the legal code.  Are you
saying everything has to be subject to legal codes to be effective?
 
>> Corallary:  you get what you pay for.  On the Internet and USENET, you pay
>> for connectivity and even freedom, not for control.
>
>That is a conceptual way to accept the partial waste of an infrastructure
>which cost billions. Beyond any nationalistic bigotry I would like to
>suggest that Americans (from Canada to Argentina) take the concepts of
>"freedom and control" too far. If things will work, and if Internet/Bitnet
>will serve humanity, there must be some rules - which do not necessarily
>imply "control" in a political context whatsoever.
 
While life can be more fun when there is more agreement about rules and
guidelines of social conduct, that doesn't change the fact that there
fundamentally isn't a basis for imposing a code of conduct on the network.
That you think there should be such a basis would not ipso facto mean there
is such a basis.
 
If you want to set up the rules, you'd better set up a net where that's
agreed upon.  In this Internet, there is no such agreement on a network-wide
basis.
 
>    Regards, APS (FISH-ECOLOGY).
>    ----------------------------
 
Nick