Subject: Re(2): Spam

From: ColorNet Robin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:16:59 +0200

[email-masked] a écrit:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ColorNet Robin [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 6:39 PM
>> To:   [email-masked]
>> Subject:      Spam
>>
>> Hello all. .....
>>
> I fail to see how the concept of theft changes with the medium over
>which it is committed. Spamming is spamming, whether it be over a
>cablemodem, telephone modem, or website-based e-mail utility accessed in a
>JavaCafe.
>
>        That's the whole point.
If the recipient has totally free internet access then nothing is being
stolen from him.  The point can be made by the access provider, however.
>
>> Also, and I will go into this deeper after my lunch on wednesday with
>the
>> Commissaire of the CNIL (French Data Protection Agency), there are a
>> number of changes in the pipeline including opt in agreements due to
>start
>> in Europe in January, and agreed on by all the European Data Protection
>> authorities.
>>
>        Why does this matter? We are not setting law here, merely
>recognizing that such laws exist. If there is a law on record which
>pertains
>to the privacy of personal information, the sending of Unsolicited
>Commercial E-Mail or Usenet posts, or other RELEVANT topics, please post
>it
>or e-mail it to me and I will include it in the appropriate place.
Although we are not setting law, those that do, as can be seen by the
recent Ontario anti spam precedent http://www.juriscom.net/elaw/e-law11.htm
" 31 (…) I conclude that sending unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail is in
breach of the emerging principles of Netiquette, unless it is specifically
permitted in the governing contract. As the rules of Netiquette govern the
parties' Contract, the plaintiff is in breach of its terms justifying
disconnection of service. Secondly, in the alternative, Nexx is permitted
to add terms to the Contract precluding a Nexx client sending unsolicited
bulk e-mail directly, or through a third party. If the plaintiffs do not
concur with the new term, they are entitled to a rebate of the pro-rated
balance of the Contract price, and the defendant is entitled to disconnect
service. The defendant has agreed to repay the prorated balance owing
under the Contract from April 5, 1999 to August 5, 1999. "
>        We cannot and will not wait for international governmental bodies
>to
>create law so we can reference them. The RFC processes is designed to be
>able to accommodate the fact that laws do change - RFC get updated and
>obsoleted.

> However, the IETF is the body charged with
>the implementation of directional policy. That is our role.
>
>        Jonathan, you are trying to turn this draft into an ISOC dictum. I
>suggest you compare that to any other Informational RFC in existence. It
>simply will not be approved. In such cases, we must present what we
>reasonably expect to be adopted.
To my mind not an ISOC dictum but effectively a platform statement which
can be built upon by jurisprudence at the same time acting against SPAM
while protecting the free flow of information and opinion on the Internet,
while attempting to underpin the recognized authority - or at any rate
relevance - of ISOC/IETF and later ISTF in societal matters.  The work of
the IETF is universally recognised, especially at this stage because
authoritative individuals on internet matters are rare.  Nevertheless,
there are overall strategic implications which did not exist when the
Internet was a marginal influence in which neither ATT nor Bill Gates
believed.  This has changed and these changes attract power plays which
can lever RFC's for whatever use ...... and my concern is that IETF and
ISOC have something valuable, called freedom, that we need to defend.
>
>        We cannot, by nature, be all things to all people. Therefore, we
>must be a framework for as many as possible.
I may be to ambitious :=)
>
>        I wish to close this by stating very clearly that, as the Editor
>of
>this document, I will include whatever the group and the authors feel is
>germane. Neither Sally as Chair, or April as AD have ever discounted
>contributions because of disagreements that I know of.
>
>        Everyone is open to suggestions, but I assure you that political
>will and political or commercial agendas have no place here whatsoever.
>
>        Ted

Regards Jonathan