Subject: Re: SPAM MAPS

From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 14:57:47 -0400

> I don't know whether anyone else has looked at the possibility of using
> the palindrome of SPAM MAPS in the title :=)
>
        I can honestly say that I had not even thought of that possibility
:-)

> Regarding my earlier comments and the general concensus that they did not
> fit in there is little more that I can add.  If it is held useful for
> information purposes I will send you a summary of the French position.
>
        That information will certainly be useful from a referential point,
and I encourage you to forward that onto the group.

> lMHO that there has been insufficient attention paid to the fact that the
> legislator is already using published "netiquette" as the basis for legal
> precedents by the legislator when it suits.
>
        I would disagree, as there is no standardized statement of what is
appropriate and what is inappropriate, from a Netiquette perspective.
Inasmuch as the work of IETF-RUN and the USV Area direct themselves to that
end, the documents produced here and in our sibling groups fulfill that end.
However, once again, and in finality, we make recommendations. We do not,
can not, and will not make legislation.

        It is up to an informed constituency to guide their legislators
toward making effective public policy. Those constituents can get their
information from the works of the IETF, as that is the purpose of the IETF.

        [...]  Anyone can OPT IN anywhere in the name of [email-masked] and
> then sell off the email names thus procured in a cascade mechanism
> throughout the system.
>
        Actually, the required-response mechanism of Opt-In is designed to
prevent that, both from the perspective of mail-bombing via Opt-In, as well
as harvesting.

> Thus how is one to react towards an advertiser who
> purchased email lists of opt in individuals in "good faith".
>
        Read the document. They shouldn't have purchased lists, period. If
they can't gather their own lists from their own resources, why feel sorry
for them when they get caught? Someone who spams is a criminal. Someone who
pays money to a stranger for a list of unknown and unverified names and then
spams, is a dumb criminal.

> There is
> little point in saying such lists are bad - they exist off line and are
> not illegal.
>
        It isn't offline. It is a paper mailing list. To say offline implies
that there is a relationship to "on-line". There isn't.

        It's just paper. It isn't illegal, because the recipient didn't pay
anything to receive the unasked for mail. That point has been made,
repeatedly.

> For the offline universe there is a direct parallel between
> SPAM and JUNKMAIL, and, at any rate in Europe, and for the individual user
> of a free mail and cable, no incremental charges.
>
        Your second statement proves your first statement incorrect. There
is no direct parallel, because in the case of Junk Paper Mail, there are no
incremental charges. They are not the same. Back to Albert's earlier
statement, that for there to be a parallel, the paper mail advert would have
to be sent postage due, with no choice on the part of the recipient as to
whether or not to pay for it.

> If there is no proven method of identification,
>
        Did you actually *read* the draft? There is. We've covered that.

> how can anyone opt in or opt out - especially if
> the opt out lists can only be accessed on a fee payment basis weighted in
> favor of large corporations,
>
        I think your model is backwards. You make the assumption that all
parties Opt Out, then you make people PAY for the Opt-In list, if you choose
to build your model on a pay-for-access centralized opt-in list method.

        Personally, I think the only organization authorized to maintain a
"global" opt-in list is a group empowered by ISOC with the authority to
charge for the access to it, and the power to enforce its proper use.
Perhaps a discussion for ISTF in a few months, oui?

> - we will be faced either with marketing
> jungle warfare or with potential censorship of the freedom of information.
>
        For myself, I choose marketing jungle warfare. No company is
inherently entitled to be in business. I realize that such a statement flies
in the face of some countries' tradition on underwriting failing business,
or fostering anti-competitive activities, but that's my feeling.

        If a company can't stay afloat without spamming - so be it. Darwin
can have them.

        Ted