Subject: Fwd: Re: RE: The (First) Last Call for Comments

From: ColorNet Robin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:02:35 +0200

(reply sent to TGavin perso in error instead of to list)

Hello again .... with the midnight hour striking I am uncertain of what a
"leadership" role actually means in your terminology or how many people
are on the user list and how many of those speak French but there is a
serious reconsideration of a number of points if we wish to avoid "MAKING
ENEMIES FAST".

For the good news :
Yes you have some of the right ideas
There are interesting developments which land in your laps from North of
the border (commenst in French and in English
http://www.juriscom.net/elaw/e-law11.htm
including quotations from
http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dljunk/nexxorder.html
http://globetechnology.com/gam/News/19990709/RSPAM.html

There are also a lot of articles like  :
E-TAIL
Novell Seeks E-Com Identity
What does Novell know about "identity brokering" that others haven't yet
figured out? Novell's hoping the answer will become clearer next month
when it officially takes the wraps off Digital Me, directory-based
Internet software that promises to protect consumers' personal
information online while easing the process of sharing that data with
electronic commerce sites.
--Inter@ctive Week  [September 15]

However IMHO there is an urgent need to restructure the draft and to refer
back to the list with a more comprehensive document which would attract
both informed support and avoid some misinterpretations.  If further
comments are held out of place please let me know because I am unfamiliar
with the original terms of reference.  Nevertheless we are touching upon a
number of areas of strategic importance to the internet environment and we
should ensure that our arguments are both cogent, viable, and interactive.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF PREPOSITIONNING, PLAYING TO THE GALLERY, and
INSUFFICIENT THOUGHT concerning STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS.  It was timed to
come out on monday for a Business Interest seminar in France which
condemned european government hesitations and advocated private area
direct intervention and control so as to create conditions which are seen
by many - notably GLIC - as attempts to "trust" the market.  Trust here is
ironically in the sense of anti-trust.

I quote it in full  www.vivendi.fr because it forms part of the
AOL/VIVENDI war for database control and we should understand that the
road to hell leads through good intentions.  I suggest intense and
informed

        """Canal Plus, Cegetel and Havas are now united within Vivendi
Communications, which operates in a variety of Internet activities. We are
highly aware of the need for a responsible attitude to developing
interactive media and on-line shopping.
That is why we have taken the initiative of setting in place the Internet
with Confidence Charter, in which we commit to respecting seven main
principles, which are accompanied by concrete measures.

                One of the main interests of the Internet is the possibility it offers
of providing personalized information. However, basic rights must be
respected when collecting and processing personal data.
Vivendi and its companies apply and defend the principles of European
regulations on data protection, and inform you of any data collection and
processing operations that concern you.
Concretely, Vivendi and its companies commit to:
– naming a person who will answer your questions on data processing;
– taking all possible technical and legal measures to prevent the
misappropriation of data during transfer to third parties or storage;
– ensuring the promotion at international level of the principles
contained in the European regulations.

        It is vital to fight the diffusion of illicit material, especially any
that incites racism, xenophobia or paedophilia. It is equally important to
respect freedom of expression and the confidential nature of private
messages.
Vivendi and its companies are drivers in the search to find the right
balance, especially in regard to the protection of children.
Concretely, Vivendi and its companies commit to:
– giving you the means to choose and control content (filtering systems
and other selection methods);
– collaborating directly and unconditionally with authorities in charge of
fighting the diffusion of material related to paedophilia.

                        The quantity of information and content available on the Internet and
the ease with which it can be circulated should not result in intellectual
property rights being forgotten.
Vivendi and its companies will implement the most appropriate technical
and legal measures, depending on their activities, to protect these rights.
Concretely, Vivendi and its companies commit to:
– informing you of your rights and obligations when you use legally
protected content;
– promoting techniques to protect works and restrict the spread of pirate
versions;
– working together and holding regular consultations to spread best
practices in content protection.

        When carrying out all on-line operations and transactions, you should be
covered by the same legal rights as for traditional transactions.
Given the international nature of the Internet, Vivendi and its companies
support the development and application of codes of conduct that will make
sure players in the market act in a responsible way.
Concretely, Vivendi and its companies commit to:
– supplying you with all information needed before you conclude
transactions;
– setting up specific on-line teams that will find effective answers to
consumers' questions;
– facilitating the on-line settlement of disputes.

                                One of the essential requirements expressed by Internauts is to be
able to have confidence in the security of their exchanges and
transactions.
Vivendi and its companies create the environment that will build the
confidence needed for the healthy, dynamic development of e-commerce.
Concretely, Vivendi and its companies commit to:
– using the best means available to guarantee the confidentiality of your
exchanges and the security of your payments;
– using the most suitable techniques to keep a record of transactions;
– respecting consumer protection legislation.

        As it gives Internauts access to personalized information and services,
the Internet has made it possible to develop new forms of advertising
methods.
Vivendi and its companies, as part of their activities, are very much in
favour of promoting the development of readable, truthful and
non-aggressive advertising literature.
Concretely, Vivendi and its companies commit to:
– making sure the credulity of children is not exploited;
– respecting the requests of Internauts who do not wish to receive
unsolicited advertising messages by e-mail;
– participating in the development and promotion of professional
standards.

To ensure its actions are totally in line with your expectations, Vivendi
and its companies commit to building a permanent dialogue with
individuals, associations, companies and institutions. This charter will
evolve to reflect the results of such dialogue.
Hot lines and dedicated on-line after-sales teams will form the
basis for dialogue with consumers and the associations that represent
them. Round tables will also be held with associations.
        We are fully convinced that the harmonious, profitable and durable
development of the Internet in general and e-commerce in particular is
dependent on respecting these seven commitments and on being aware that
that they will evolve and fill out as time goes by. The investment we are
making today will prepare the success of tomorrow.""""

If it is held positive I will propose a partial rewriting of the document
and then go on to a second last call for comments.  I presume this is
urgent which means I'll cancel my appointment schedule for most of
tomorrow and come back to you as and when I advance ....

NB.
> One of the
>> reasons - at least in Europe - is the legal continuity between ONLINE
>and
>> OFFLINE.
>>
>This is a subject which bears a peripheral relevance

There seems to be a serious chicken and egg misconception running through
a number of arguments in the document.  If, as is true, "netiquette"
refuses spam, the the legal basis for attacking spam does not lie with the
INTERNET or with the online environment, but with the various bodies of
legislation which apply to distance selling OFFLINE.  It is this that is
called into play here.  And the fact that ONLINE is a legal extension of
OFFLINE is of primordial importance - irrespective of the various
legislative tangles and lawsuits this is generating world wide.   You
cannot (at least in Europe) legislate ONLINE differently from OFFLINE.
The implication here is that by seriously handicapping SPAM and data
collection business models online, this modifies offline models of data
collection.  We are not talking NETIQUETTE here but PRIVACY PROTECTION.

One strong point IMHO (a recommendation to the CNIL and at board level
ISOC France last week (coincidence again :=) ?) is to make all unsolicited
mail (electronic or snail) to minors a criminal offense with the onus on
the sender/advertiser or perhaps even the medium (web site, newspaper etc)
criminally responsible.  Your feedback on this would be interesting .... ?

Another possibility (which I introduced when I filed my dataprotection
dossier with the CNIL in 1997) is the concept of a UNIVERSAL ANONYMOUS
IDENTIFIER with a system of third party identification (somewhat along the
lines of www.zeroknowledge.com)

To put all this in context my website www.couleurs.com was awarded the IBM
E Business trophy for best website in France in the context of Innovation
and is mentionned more than amply in both the CNIL annual report and the
French official Government mission on INTERNET and INDUSTRY due to come
out in 10 days time.  It is because of my concern for the implications of
what one can do without cookies already that I followed up on RUN and
WEIRD and parachuted coincidentally down into your laps today .....
According to Don Peppers I'm about 5 years ahead of the market in the area
of individual identification (which is not necessarily an advantage).  It
does however contribute to understanding how an Englishman can achieve
some fun positions in France.

 Over to you and to any comments

Best regards Jonathan Robin

[email-masked] a écrit:
>
>Jonathan;
>
>Welcome. I am tremendously pleased that you have decided to post today.
>
>I have responded to some of your points below.
>
>Best Regards;
>
>Ted Gavin
>Director, Information Technology
>Penn Ventilation, Inc.
>Member - ISOC, IETF, APICS
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:        [email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>> Sent:        Wednesday, September 15, 1999 3:48 PM
>> To:  [email-masked]
>> Cc:  [email-masked]
>> Subject:     Re: The (First) Last Call for Comments
>>
>> Good Afternoon,
>>
>> I am totally new to the discussion group but hope to make one or two
>> remarks over the next 24 hours.
>>
>I believe we all look forward to your comments.
>
>> For Information I am meeting one of the Commissaires of the French Data
>> Protection Agency on Friday, and will be lunching with another on 22nd.
>> There will be an official CNIL report on spamming before the October 5
>> Parliamentrary Internet & the Law meeting (1 full day including lunch if
>> you'd like to RUN over) organised by the joint French Senate and
>> Parliament with the French Chapter of ISOC.  Your spam comments come in
>> just at the right moment.
>>
>Excellent!
>
>> Nevertheless, at a first glance I'm sorry to put a spanner in the works
>> but there are points which may either delay publication or stimulate in
>> depth soul searching before we let the cat out of the bag.  One of the
>> reasons - at least in Europe - is the legal continuity between ONLINE
>and
>> OFFLINE.
>>
>This is a subject which bears a peripheral relevance, and I hope you will
>take a leadership role in bringing that discussion out in the group. My
>private concern is that, while this should be a "nationless" document, it
>should also be all-encompassing, yet flexible in its application.
>Therefore,
>having a content which is both relevant and applicable to European
>perception and law is well within our desired course of action.
>
>> I'll come back later with a detailed comment based on a synthesis of the
>> European viewpoints and legal implications - although I am not, myself
>> anything approaching a lawyer.
>>
>Nor are most of us. Which works to our benefit, I think. As an
>Informational
>RFC-in-the-making, we should avoid making definitive statements of law,
>per
>se.
>
>-tg
>

---

From: Albert Lunde <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:03:28 CDT

> refuses spam, the the legal basis for attacking spam does not lie with th=
> e

I'd repeat what I said about the prior RFC, that in my opinion we
aren't writing a legal document, but an ethical document.

It is because the economics of spamming are unbalanced that it
is unethical, whereas some other methods of online marketing _are_
ethical.

This is independent of whose legal system one is operating under:
it has to do with the technical and economic charactistics
of today's Internet. The key things are hard to change: if there
was a single, quick technical fix: it would be in use today.

(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.)

You may be right that privacy protection is dependent on the
legal framework: there's less of a technical imperative
on privacy one way or another. But, in theory at least,
the IETF's audience is world-wide, not the US or Europe,
we need to look for universals, or say "your milage may vary".

A weaker, but significant ethical argument is that marketers
who betray their customer's trust are wasting one of their
most valuable assets.

Perhaps the difficulty in making a pure economic argument
on privacy is the difficulty of assigning an specific
value to personal information, kept private or revealed,
to thus show again that the cost/benfit or a relationship
is unbalanced. Law serves to fix a value to "intangibles"
thru things like fines and punitive damages.

--
    Albert Lunde                      [email-masked]