Subject: Re: Re(2): SPAM

From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:23:44 -0400

> >At 03:28 AM 9/16/99 +0200, ColorNet Robin wrote:
        >
> >>Question :  To what extent does the draft currently address
> >>
        [stuff deleted]
> >
> >Bigger question:  To what extent does it matter?
> In Europe the interrelationship of all the above are considered crucial
> and priority topics, and will form the basis of the Parliamentary meetings
> with which ISOC France is associated on October 5th. IMHO not only does it
> matter but it is crucial.  I was surprised by Ted's view that it is
> peripheral.
>
Jonathan, I believe you may have misunderstood my statement. If I did not
make it clear enough, I apologize. My statement to you was

"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."

To more accurately define my statement to you:

You addressed the question of the definition between ONLINE and OFFLINE. As
we have not considered it, but it is not directly relevant to
"responsibility", I noted that it was of peripheral relevance to our
existing work. I also encouraged you to facilitate that conversation on the
group (take a leadership role in bringing that discussion out in the group".
I presume that is what you are doing here, although above you appear to be
addressing spam in general, with no distinction being lent to ONLINE or
OFFLINE.

Bear in mind that, as a document which will be Informational, we should not
be stating Fact of Law. There are simply too many jurisdictions and too many
laws to state as being abject fact. this is why the crux of the draft, as it
applies to multi-jurisdictional is that the advertiser bears responsibility
for determining their actions against the laws of the jurisdictions in which
they advertise. Any reference to specific law should be made in the Appendix
section, as they already have.

> It is also at the heart of what is perceived to be the US/
> European Economic war for control of future economic development in the
> EEC.
>
I believe we should avoid such political concerns, as they have little
bearing on what constitutes "Responsible Advertising on the Internet"

        [...]

> The spam issue is extremely complicated
> because it is in European minds totally interlinked with advertising and
> data marts, and because European law functions as if ONLINE is an
> extension of OFFLINE.
>
        Please define exactly what you mean when you say ONLINE and OFFLINE.
There is a distinction here, and I'm not sure we're all getting the full
impact of your thoughts.

> >and as of now it *still* hasn't been made public.  I
> >say let's publish the work we have, and let anyone who cares work on the
> >next version (which can then supersede this one) to get 100%
> >consensus.  But for now, we need SOMETHING that addresses the network
> >consequences of spam so that people can refer to it as an authority (of
> >sorts) about why spam is bad for the network as a whole as well as bad
> for
> >the individual who sends it.
>   The question is not SPAM and NETWORK,  the question is DATA BASE
> control.
>
        The following is entirely my opinion only:

        The question is Responsibility. Responsible use of the Network. If
an advertiser collects personal data, then so be it, as long as they do it
within the laws of the jurisdictions within which they operate, and do it in
a manner which is responsible. We have attempted to shed light on what is
considered responsible. We should not attempt to address the laws of the
numerous jurisdictions, IMO. If there are specific recommendations from the
French Government, Parliament, or other body which you would like to see
included, please post them to the list and we can include them. But we
should not, as an international body, state the laws of one nation as an
all-encompassing fact.

> But as I said earlier, I have arrived late in the day and will
> respectfully bow out if I am felt out of place.
>
        Your comments are worthwhile, Jonathan. Again, I encourage you to
continue them. But please be patient, as we need you to help us understand
exactly what the concerns are which you are representing.

        Regards,

        Ted