Subject: second RUN doc? (fwd)

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:32:58 -0800

I guess I wasn't subscribed from this address!  So now I am and here is
what I wanted to say...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:10:01 -0800 (PST)
From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], April Marine <[email-masked]>
Subject: second RUN doc?

Hi all!

I was supposed to ask this in Orlando and forgot.  But that works out as
now we can ask a wider audience on the mailing lists.

The RUN Working Group is just getting its "Don't Spew" doc through the
IESG.  Sally and Gary have been working hard behind the scenes.  The WG
has one more doc on its charter, usually called the "adverts" doc.  This
one discusses responsible ways of advertising on the net.  (It's meant to
be the "do" flipside of the "don't do" SPEW doc. :-)

However, this doc is somewhat stalled.  Is there interest in continuing to
work on this doc?  If not, we will declare it obsoleted and close the WG
once the other doc is published.  So now is the time to speak up if you'd
be interested in further developing or reviewing this draft.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, I believe the last draft is still
available as: draft-ietf-run-adverts-00.txt.

Speak up soon please!

thanks,
April

-------------------------------------------------------------------
April Marine                    1-650-604-0762  --> me
GLOBE Program                   1-800-858-9947  --> GLOBE Help Desk
(Raytheon ITSS)                 [email-masked]
NASA Ames Research Center, MS 204/14, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
(and IETF User Services Area Director http://archimedes.nasa.gov/usv/)

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:36:11 -0800

and another...

what do people think?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:43:55 -0700
From: Bill Austin <[email-masked]>
To: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: second RUN doc?

I have read through the draft and for the most part it appears to be fluff and
things you should not do.  If it stays that way, it will not be of much use.
There is a lot of "trying to be amusing" stuff at the beginning which would
keep most readers from getting to the meat of the information.  Then there is
a lot of negative "don't do these things" details which belong in the other
document and could be referenced. Finally, they have left out many of the most
effective current methods and have provided no details of how to go about
advertising responsibly.  I would see this document as a cookbook for Internet
advertisers just starting out.  If they get the "best practices" statement
only, it should give them enough details on effective methods that they do not
go out and "invent" or discover the bad methods.

Imagine my surprise a couple of years ago when I went to http://www.yahoo.com/
and did a search on the word Motorola and got a banner advertisement for
Qualcomm cellular phones.

--
Bill Austin  Motorola, SSG       http://www.mot.com/sstg/
http://worldnet.att.net/~wbaustin/
President, AzTeC Computing Free-Net  http://aztec.asu.edu/

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:35:51 -0800

I have Bill's permission to forward a couple of comments from him on the
adverts doc.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:19:03 -0700
From: Bill Austin <[email-masked]>
To: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: second RUN doc?

I think that it is just as important to tell people what they can do as it is
to tell them what they should not do.  This "how to advertise responsibly"
document should be an important one.  For example, there are certain things
which you can do but for which a patent has been issued (priceline.com) and
royalties might be due.  If the "Don't Spew" does not address what can be done
then I believe the adverts document may be needed.

--
Bill Austin  http://sstg.geg.mot.com/~p23393/
President, AzTeC Computing Free-Net  http://aztec.asu.edu/

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:38:33 -0800

Forwarding with permission...

April

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:58:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
To: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: second RUN doc? (fwd)

Hello April.

I just wanted to voice my opinion on the Responsible Advertizing draft. I
feel that it is important because it illustrates several options for
advertizers who might want to influence the internet audience.

It is well written and positive. The only suggestion that I have is to
give statistical data that will convince advertizers to use other forms of
internet advertising. For example, how effective is mass mailing and what
percentage of internet users get a positive or negative image of the
sender. Conversely, the draft should show data that points out how
effective it is to place a banner advertisement on a related site or
having a website that a search engine will list when a user is looking for
information related to the product or service the advertiser is pushing.

I like the form that this draft is taking. It is optimistic and helpful
and not a damning letter threatenning commercial types to STAY OFF THE
NET. Personally I would like researchers like myself to abandon the WWW
and start another HTML/JAVA network that will ban comercial ventures
again.

Sincerely,
Thomas E. Evans Jr.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:36:11 -0800

and another...

what do people think?

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:35:51 -0800

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:38:33 -0800

April

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:58:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
To: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: second RUN doc? (fwd)

Hello April.

Sincerely,
Thomas E. Evans Jr.