Re: Geofeeds are adversarial

[John Curran via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

One observation from watching similar debates over the years – the period in which the Internet technical community 
could simply respond “that isn’t technically possible” or “that won’t work as intended” and expect the proposed law or 
regulation to stall seems largely behind us.

In many jurisdictions, if policymakers perceive a requirement as necessary, they now proceed regardless. The practical 
effect of disengagement is often not the abandonment of the mandate, but its advancement with less operational and 
technical input.

I recognize this is not particularly pleasant for those operating networks, but it does suggest that the strategic 
choice that technical communities now face is deciding how and when to participate to shape discussions toward more 
pragmatic outcomes – since there will be outcomes, and fewer & more feasible approaches definitely beats the 
alternative. 

FYI,
/John

p.s. Disclaimers: my views alone; your mileage may vary; this email composed with 100% recycled electrons...

> On Feb 16, 2026, at 11:21 PM, nanog--- via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> It would be nice if bad laws were impossible to comply with. Then nobody would comply with them.
>
> Then someone comes along and finds there's a way to sell the appearance of complying with the law (even though actual 
> compliance is impossible) as a service, and everybody is forced to buy the service so they don't get prosecuted.
>
> Just one more instance of bad politics and capitalism messing everything up for everybody.
>
>
> On 16 February 2026 15:08:46 CET, Michael Greenup via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> > It is important to consider the extent to which US state government mandates influence the regulation of content 
> > access. For instance, numerous states now require identity verification for viewers of adult content to confirm 
> > their age. Many of these laws are formulated such that any viewer within the state's jurisdiction must be verified, 
> > necessitating IP address-based geolocation to ensure compliance.
> >
> > Not saying I agree or disagree here, just laying out a regulated use case.
> >
> > YMMV.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > The views and opinions included in this email belong to the author and are not representative of the views and 
> > opinions of the company which employs me. If you find a spelling or grammatical error, you may keep it.
> >
> > Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 10:25:56PM -0800, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > > > Personally, I???ve always thought that IP Geolocation was a bad idea
> > > > and nothing I???ve seen in the usage of it to date has changed my mind.
> > > > Agree.  We've spent decades trying to build a network that allows everyone
> > > to access everything independent of geographical location, and now people
> > > have come along with broken business models which demand that we abandon
> > > this fundamental principle of the Internet in order to accomodate them.
> > >
> > > ---rsk
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list 
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/VT47D47CAP6GHJWQARWCY5Z7N3EXJPUK/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list 
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/LYLXWZI7QLGDP5P5YWEHMY6NXDIJKGWF/

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/2UKQXS3SZK4JHCW52URJAVTNIQPPQWO2/