Subject: Another IMO

From: Barbara Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:36:23 -0600

April, Ted, Johnathon - et al.

  There are two issues that I would like to bring up.  1) The discussion
that
we have had with this draft and several others in which the fine line of

"policy" is walked.  It is my understnding that the purpose of Drafts is
to
state operational specifications NOT policy.  In a draft such as this we

as IETF walk a fine line trying to get as much policy contained without
being discovered!

  Secondly, whereas advertising on the internet is rapidly becoming a
concern
on an international level - the US has had a "doors open" policy of
basically no regulation  for advertiser's (other than content) and no
regulation of list privacy - (other than by state and by industry, i.e.
medical ...) Changes if at all are only going to come through
legislation. Which
means politics - and our politicians are just as active in the
on-line/off-line
spam as all the rest.

 That was a long way around why our draft may seem a bit lacking in
enforcement.  We are not capable of actual regulation.

  I do appreciate the information that you have supplied and think that
is is very worthwhile to continue to pass this along to our legislators.

Although mine - who proposes an interest in anti-spamming still hasn't
responded to my offer to provide her with such information.

Best regards.

--Barbara

--
"What they took for inattentiveness was a miracle of
concentration."

                 -Toni Morrison