Proposal for RFC 2

[dvdrw]

Request for Comments: 2                                                    dvdrw
Proposal

            Permanent Termination of Services and Subsequent Actions

Status of This Memo

    This document specifies the required information to be readily available to
    users, as well as necessary actions following the permanent termination of
    a user's access to [bitwave.tv] services.

Abstract

    Permenent terminations of access to services (from here: ban) to
    [bitwave.tv] services have very seldom happened. This has allowed
    information regarding bans to trickle down to users. However, the rate at
    which bans happen will only increase over time.

    To stay ahead of the curve, with the goal of making bans more transparent,
    this document defines the necessary information to be available, and
    required steps to be taken following a ban.

Table of Contents
      1. Necessary Steps
      2. Necessary Information

1. Necessary Steps

    After any permanent ban to any [bitwave.tv] services has been issued, the
    banned user MUST be informed of their ban, date of issuing, and reason for
    ban.

    After any permanent ban to any [bitwave.tv] services has been issued, the
    username of the banned user, with the reason for ban, MUST be publicly
    announced.

2. Necessary Information

    Any and all permanent bans to any [bitwave.tv] services MUST have the
    following information regarding it publicly available, in a human-readable
    form:

      - Banned username

      - Date of issuing of ban

      - Unique, non-vague, reason for ban

      - Type of content that warranted the ban

[herb green]

This seems reasonable to me.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RFC Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rfccommittee...@bitwave.tv.

[Senator Funstein]

"-Type of content that warranted the ban"
As we know from recent events... there isn't always a content-related reason for the ban. 

I would suggest instead the following replacement language:

"-When applicable, type of content that warranted the ban"

[Senator Funstein]

On a less semantic note, I propose two additional changes:

Change: add the following line within Section 2. Necessary Information, as an additional piece of information made public:

"- The exact [bitwave.tv] service(s) that the affected party can no longer use."

Reason for change: In order to make the nature and extent of the ban even more transparent to both the banned user and the public, the public posting of information should state which of bitwave's services a ban is applicable to 

Change the following Section 2. Necessary Information text:

"Any and all permanent bans to any [bitwave.tv] services MUST have the

following information regarding it publicly available, in a human-readable 

form:"

to the following text:

" [bitwave.tv] MUST make the following information publicly available, in

a permanent and human-readable form, for any and all permanent bans 

to any [bitwave.tv] service. " 

Reason for change: The original language is grammatically ambiguous and the nature of the publication and publisher are vague. This change solidifies what I believe to be the original intention of this whole section: to hold that BITWAVE will publish a VERIFIABLE record that will remain as a public history and accounting of recent and past permanent bans of users. 

(TLDR: answers the questions: who is doing the publishing?[bitwave.tv] and how long does this record need to exist? [permanently]

Option for the RFCC to consider: If the RFCC does not think the record needs to be permanently published, and I can think of a few reasons not to do so, replace "permanent" with whatever period of time the RFCC finds appropriate. 

[dvdrw]

Perhaps I should have made it more clear that the onus is on [bitwave.tv] to publish, and maintain published, that information. 'Permanently' seems fine too.

For the 'if applicable for content' clause, I'd much rather have an explicit N/A in that field than have it missing altogether, since that gives leeway for shady reasoning.