Subject: Re(2): SPAM

From: ColorNet Robin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:43:44 +0200

[email-masked] a écrit:
>At 03:28 AM 9/16/99 +0200, ColorNet Robin wrote:
>>http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_3822.html?chkpt=ad1qsfp
>>
>>for information :=) Jonathan
>>
>>Question :  To what extent does the draft currently address
>>
>>1)  Paid Advertising
>>2)  Commercial Spam
>>3)  Non commercial spam
>>4)  Rich Media
>>5)  Next generation rich e-mails
>>6)  Data protection
>>7)  Data collection
>>8)  Protection of minors and "human dignity"
>
>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.  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.  The argument runs as follows.  As Europe will soon have a common
currency and frontiers, while still frequently keeping its old prejudices
and language barriers, those most able and equipped to control European
corporations are the Americans.  The privacy issue has thus become a
handle to protect European Industry in making it difficult for privacy
data export and interlinkage.  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.  This has been confirmed by the French Supreme Court
and last week's anti spam directives go even farther than expected.
>
>No RFC ever completely addresses every issue possible under the topic of
>the day.  That's what later RFCs are for, to enhance and clarify the
>issue.
>This RFC has been in development and under discussion for more than 1 year
>(more than 2 years?)
This is fully understood, nevertheless as it stands at present (I do not
wish to underestimate the considerable efforts that have been made) it
seems in European eyes at least to lack maturity.  I realise I may be
making myself unpopular by standing out like a sore thumb after joining
the list after 3 years in the IETF but I did not even realise that the
User Services existed and presumed everything was totally "hard" standards
and protocoles and not "soft" societal.

>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.   But as I said earlier, I have arrived late in the day and will
respectfully bow out if I am felt out of place.  For information, I manage
the visitors' books for each country participating in the annual Internet
Fiesta - which will be on a world level this year, and this may help
explain my positionning in this matter.  www.internet-fiesta.org

Best regards Jonathan
>jc