>Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:44:29 -0500 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"Becky Burr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"Esther Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Mike Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >In-Reply-To: <00d801be59a9$ea3f13a0$8e1c1ad1@ken-stubbs> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >Ken, > >>1. are you saying that you don't have a position on a code of ethics for >>registrars > >Do you know of any other Internet related service where the >providers are subject to a "code of ethics?" Should ISPs >be subject to a code of ethics? ECommerce providers? >How about telephone companies? > >The reality today is that there are few services in the >communications field where providers are subject to codes. >They are hard to devise and avoid being discriminatory. >They are difficult to enforce. They are often abused. >They are fraught with liabilities of all kinds. Once you >start, where do you end? > >Do you want to open up this Pandora's Box? > > >--tony > -- The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719 Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
