[snip]
>1) Michel communicated to John that, basically, the IP address where John works would be blocked from UT access. John requested that other individuals at the client location be allowed to access the UT. Michel’s e-mail response to John’s request was the following:
>
>“the answer is no. Their entire two Class C are blocked for lifetime duration of UT. No negotication will occur. It’s part of the context, they have provided you access to the Internet which lead you access to our services. In such a context, they are also included in the loop.”
>
>Michel, unless you have already done so, I ask that you reconsider the block against the client’s network.
[snip]

Michel Fournier, this decision is ridiculous! I have several clients, one of them is the KLM (Royal Dutch Airlines). Suppose you want to block me... are you going to block everyone who works at the KLM, a company with over 20,000 employees???? Although it may be the case that I'm the only person here who visits the UT, that would really be overkill.

Another reason why blocking IP addresses is ridiculous: The to be blocked person can go to his neighbor or an internet cafe and log in with another name. How are you gonna tackle that situation???

Yet another reason why blocking IP addresses is ridiculous: At home only those who have DSL probably have a permanent IP address. Those who have not, have a temporay IP address for the time of the session. Useless to block such an address, don't you think???

Last, but not least, reason why blocking IP addresses is ridiculous: While you have the right (and the obligation) to ban certain individuals when they 'misbehave', that does not necessarilly imply that this individual also looses the right to check what others are writing about him, after the banishment. In the case of John, I think it is his right to still visit the UT and read what others are (currently) claiming about him. For that, he needs access via his IP addresses.