Re: FW: APNIC's Censorship (Was: Re: Removal from APNIC lists)

[Vernon Schryver <vjs at calcite.rhyolite.com>]

> From: Karl Denninger  <karl at mcs.net>
> To: Noel Chiappa <jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
> Cc: ietf at ietf.org, DOMAIN-POLICY at lists.internic.net, antitrust at usdoj.gov,
>         arin-council at arin.net, dnrc-board at domain-name.org

sheesh, what a silly CC: list.

> May I suggest that all persons who so indicate be recorded, including their
> full name and organizational affiliation.
>
> Just in case, of course, such an organized campaign of action should ever
> occur and Mr. Fleming might want to know who "authorized" same.
>
> This kind of "suggestion" is simply amazing, coming from someone involved in
> a group which is supposed to be open, transparent, and operates to set
> policy and procedure for things which are clearly in the public trust.


The only thing that is even slightly amazing some people never learn that
the final and entirely appropriate sanction that a genuinely open,
transparent, public trust can and should exercise is to ostracize those
who prove themselves unable or unwilling to play by the local rules.  The
tantrums thrown by those who are finally ostracized in adult arenas are
at most superficially different from the tantrums thrown by 4-year-olds
who exhaust the tolerance of their playmates and then scream to the
playground supervisors, "They Won't Play With Me!"

It is vital as well as documented in the official IETF rules that those
who cause sufficient problems be silenced in the mailing lists.  Setting
asside the particular case, you can easily imagine behavior that all but
the perpetrator would agree would justify expulsion, such as repeated
bogus offers for magazine subscriptions.  Screams about anti-trust laws,
public trusts, First Amendment complaints, or censorship are no beter than
the tantrums of children who do not like the consequences of persistent
misbehavior.  Those who are ostracized can still monitor the lists and
can still communicate privately with government and other officials.  All
that is being denied is the use of the official IETF printing press.
Absolutely none of us have a divine or other right to that press.

My personal opinion about this case is that it would be better to allow
and even encourage the obviously silly nonsense that has often come from
some.  Such stuff might at first confuse some government and other powerful
officials, but probably not.  Adults, like children, learn early to
recognize most would be bullies, cranks, crackpots, and frauds.  Tolerating
obvious cranks in the non-technical IETF lists would continually warn
newcomers to read critically.  If the lists always have a strong vein of
nonsense, knowledgeable participants can more easily debunk efforts to
abuse the contents of the lists as holy writ.  In many situations, the
best way to debunk nonsense is to continue to collect and publish all of
it.  Its most dangerous feature is that sometimes it seems almost coherent.
A powerful minimally intelligent public figure contacted privately would
find a more complete set of writings illuminating.


Vernon Schryver    vjs at rhyolite.com