Subject: Re(2): The (First) Last Call for Comments - peer pressure

From: ColorNet Robin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:01:35 +0200

JR
>> The french postal service dealing with large document deliveries -
>offline
>> spam - made a profit of 337 million francs 55 million dollars - which
>even
>> at a 5% margin means around 1 billion dollars of offline spam.....

[email-masked] a écrit:
>
>The costs of physical mail delivery in both the US and France are paid
>by the sender. The costs of e-mail delivery fall at least equally on
>the sender and recipient.
>
>These are false analogies, by my economic yardstick.
>
>--
>    Albert Lunde

Good Morning,

There seems to be an interesting difference of perspective here

As seen through European eyes the Internet is a vector, a platform whose
immediacy polarises the quintessence of a specific facette of offline
existence either "positively" or "negatively" depending who sees what and
why at any given moment in time.

Though as you say
>The costs of physical mail delivery in both the US and France are paidby
>the sender.
 The "time factor", the "human aggravation factor", and any number of the
arguments raised in the draft copy are precisely the same.On the one hand
you say that
>The costs of e-mail delivery fall at least equally onthe sender and
>recipient.
  but this is again the case with physical delivery.  Who pays for the
cost of printing and delivery ?  "the system"  who underwrites "the
system" ?  the consumer.   Thus if a national brand spends X dollars
offline on unsolicited marketing, the costs are compensated for either in
raising the price of the article, of increasing other articles, or if this
fails and the economic equation is unfavorable, then the company loses
money (or gains less than it would otherwise do) and it the shareholder or
the bank or both and the wheel turns :=)

Through European eyes it is therefore the same question but put in a less
hypocritical way because of the weight of advertising/marketing throughout
the economic system.

The historical validation for the ethical argument is valid, but at this
stage of internet development it is held difficult in many areas to
separate commercial from non commercial unsolicited mail be it email or
snail mail.  For the system the economic costs are identical.

Where things are different online is the networking immediacy and
visibility
[email-masked] a écrit:
>(Spam is being fought more effectively today by peer pressure:
>by "shunning" from other ISPs than by legislation. Law is
>not the only form of social control.)

And it IMHO that the draft should encourage action at this level and not -
if you forgive the expression - pontificate over what an advertiser "must"
or "must not" do.  After all if the individual advertiser and the
intermediaries who are offering data bases of 10 or even 50 million
clients think THEY are making money then as in any situation as one side
responds the other reacts.  The list may be insufficiently aware of the
confusion caused in some European circles by commercial US Spam which
quotes US byelaws as pseudo justification for spam at the bottom of an
email - I'll send you a copy next time it crops up.  Highlighting the
vitality and the effectiveness of peer pressure and an increasing
awareness by the community of ways in which this can effect salutory
change seem to my mind to be a better way of passing on the message.

Best regards Jonathan

---

From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:41:47 -0400

Jonathan said:

> system" ?  the consumer.
I now see the distinction you are making between ONLINE and OFFLINE,
Jonathan.

ONLINE is spam.
OFFLINE is "Junk Mail".

We are concerned only with those manners which use the Internet as a medium,
therefore, we do not address OFFLINE. I believe it is entirely outside of
our purview to address paper mail, as it does not use the Internet as its
sole or primary medium.

> Thus if a national brand spends X dollars
That may well be the case, but that is a meta-discussion of Business and
Economic ethics. All companies advertise. All companies add that cost of
advertising to their overhead, which by necessity raises their cost, which
by necessity raised their prices. Both "legitimate" advertising as well as
OFFLINE spam are included.

To then concern ourselves with which mode of advertising is an expense that
is acceptably passed on to the consumer would be an exercise in absolute
futility, as we have no point of reference, and no concern over those
venues. If a company decides that they want to use the Internet to
advertise, then our work would be relevant.

> hypocritical way because of the weight of advertising/marketing throughout
But it is not only the European economic system that is concerned here. A
paper flyer sent to every resident of Belgium has no effect whatsoever on an
e-mail user in Nairobi, with the possible exception of the minute
incremental cost increase to a product made by the same advertiser. However,
the same company sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to millions of
people, because it doesn't cost *them* any more to do it, is entirely
applicable to our work here.

> snail mail.
Snail Mail is nearly universally governmentally controlled, and regulated.
The Internet, with some exception, is not.

> For the system the economic costs are identical.
>
I don't think I have enough information to see how that is, frankly. If you
look at the economic model from a great enough view, certainly. But we are
addressing two specific parts of that model, which function independently of
each other. Because we cannot with specificity address each of them, because
what it "ethical and responsible" differ so vastly between them, we must
adhere to our charter, which is "Responsible Use of the Network", not
"Responsible Use of the Global Economy".

> or "must not" do.
If you want my honest opinion, I would like to see it become policy that
spammers lose their domain names, that the contacts for the offending domain
be blacklisted so they cannot hold that role again, and that the product or
website paying for the spamming (being advertised) suffer the same penalty.

But that is extremist, and not very realistic.

> After all if the individual advertiser and the
> email - I'll send you a copy next time it crops up.
>
Please don't bother. I'm sure we all get them. And, FYI, it isn't even a law
yet.

And we address the fact that such methods are not acceptable in the draft.

Cheers!

Ted