[snip of lots of lines] > The further question is, should an association like this have ground > rules for their membership in which when one becomes a member that > states amongst others: > > - That the ISP is not doing content-inspection > - That the ISP is not doing content modification > (eg there are ISPs who attempted to change Google Ads with their > own! Although I have not heard about this yet for Switzerland) > - That they have a proper abuse contact and handling system.
Jeroen, what you describe belongs to Net Neutrality. I am fully in favour of Net Neutrality on every aspect of it and I would even expect such an association do run a Net Neutrality quality label for its members respecting it. But is this a reason to exclude the others? We could also say we need GreenIT, we do, really, so lets exclude those who do not follow GreenIT. We could also exclude those who announce more specific routes than they should, those with many customers having infected computers, and so on to an infinite list of issues. I don't think such an association should exclude ISPs for such reasons (well, at the end, the general assembly decides). The association should, on the other side, push for existing standards and create the non-existing ones (like Net Neutrality). It could push standard on how the Internet service is defined, so customers can expect the same service under the same conditions from different ISPs. And more and more and more. Cheers, Pascal _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
