Hi! On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 21:32:36 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > I am in favour of my "cut the child in half" rule, as a general rule.
While the intention there was good and it might apparently feel like a good deterrent, I think the Solomonic Ruling is actually a very bad fit for something like a non-animated entity such as a place or a name. The Solomonic Ruling (might) work in its original form, because it applies to a single animated entity (a human) that stops being that entity if cut in half, and because it's assumed one of the parties will have a higher desire and emotional attachment to preserve that entity intact, than to "own" it. This does not work for a location, physical or virtual, probably even less so virtual. If there's a claim on an entity in a namespace, and someone else wants to claim the same, and we apply that Ruling and both need to relinquish the claim (because "cutting" the entity in half makes no sense :), then suddenly there's no one to claim it, and it can be taken by a third party. If there's a well established existing claim on an entity, and a new contender ends up forcing relinquishing it, that just feels like spiteful sabotage to me, TBH. A variation of that is, it being susceptible to be used for DDoS purposes, and even though I expect that would not pass within the community, I'm not sure how the underlying motives would be determined, so following that policy to the letter would make it possible. So I think it's probably been only a good deterrent, because it sounds scary, messy and very confrontational to invoke, not because it has good inherent properties. And that's one part of that policy I think we should definitely fix. Thanks, Guillem
