Subject: Re(2): Spam

From: ColorNet Robin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:56:18 +0200

Good Morning,
[email-masked] a écrit:
>Go talk to the ISCO
>Trustees if you want statements out of ISOC.
With respect that was done over a week ago, and highlights the
difficulties some are trying to anticipate and defuse.

[email-masked] a écrit:
>This is an IETF Working Group.  We have no business talking about or
>for ISOC unless there is some clear public ISOC statement we want to
>quote that relates to how to how to advertise on the Internet.  While
>ISOC sometimes asserts that the IETF is part of ISOC there has never
>been general agreement in the IETF on this point.
This is why there is a strong body of opinion within ISTF that membership
of ISTF should pass through membership of ISOC and IMHO there is a strong
case for that when IETF deals with societal aspects and not with technical
aspects of the Internet.
> Statements like
>"ISOC objects to SPAM' are totally out of place.
There have to be mechanisms to ensure coherency between IETF user services
and the ISTF which is why I invited all to join the ISTF list. That is
unless IETF feels that a role in decision making structures like UNESCO is
irrelevant and that n million or n billion people will automatically
respond to societal ISP's.   Remember the preamble to the draft as it
stands  "Everything has a cost"  -  and the freemails, free access, free
informational society we are fostering will at one stage of the game ask
for the piper to be paid.

>
>We already have a recent general RFC on spam.  This is uspposed to be
>a targetted RFC on what advertisers should do.
I have discussed the RFC in the context of the IAB and IMHO as it stands
the RFC could fragilise both IETF societal role and ISOC.
>
>Frankly the text below was so overblown and tugid, beside being off
>topic, I found it virtually unreadable.  I think merchants would also.
>We are not going to be able to effecitvely give merchants advice in a
>document they will not read.
The outline aimed at bolstering the future role of IETF and ISTF because
this falls also under the area of ISTF mission.  With respect, the 23
pages of the RFC if it stands as is through IESG will be laughed out of
court by merchants.  That in itself is anecdotal.  What is important that
regulatory authorities will be encouraged in their strategic wish to
ignore ISOC/IETF as a discussion partner in societal matters - which they
feel as "guardians of the law" is territory they wish to reclaim. Societal
standards may well be set which could rebound against the aims of those on
this list on both a practical and an ethical basis.  The list has
tremendous and timely opportunity to safeguard its decisional legitimacy
for the future, with the EEC SPAM decisions in Brussels on September 28,
and the French parliamentary all day meeting on October 5.

>Donald

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:36:22 -0400

From:  [email-masked] (ColorNet Robin)
Message-id:  <[email-masked]>
Date:  Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:56:18 +0200
To:  [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
            [email-masked]
Cc:  [email-masked]

>>Go talk to the ISOC

I do not understand what you mean by the above sentence.  If you are
having difficulties with the ISOC Board of Trustees, that has nothing
to do with the IETF.  My point was that only the ISOC can speak for
the ISOC and it is wrong for this WG to attempt in any way to speak
for the ISOC.

>case for that when IETF deals with societal aspects and not with technical

I don't understand why you mean by the above sentence.  The IETF is an
open voluntary association of individuals.  Certainly individuals who
are active in ISOC and "ISTF" can participate in the IETF.  Membership
is ISOC has nothing to do with participation in the IETF or its
working groups.

>> Statements like
>>"ISOC objects to SPAM' are totally out of place. [in our IETF document]

>for the piper to be paid.

No, there aren't and don't have to be any special "mechanisms" to
ensure coherency between the IETF as the ISTF.  Individuals who are
active in the IETF user services area can presumably ask to joing ISTF
and individuals who are acitve in the ISTF can be active in IETF user
services if they wish.

The goal of this WG is to express the opinion/recommendations of the
IETF and the goal of this document is to express that
opinion/recommendatio on how to advertise on the Internet.  UNESCO and
n million or n billion or n trillion people are totally irrelevant to
the opinion of the IETF except to the extent that some of those people
are active in the IETF.

What people are willing to accept in return for "free" is only
marginally relevant.  Certain, those accepting "free" stuff generally
have a relationship with whatever is giving them this stuff so for
that entity to send they advertising email may be OK if allowed by
their relationship.

>>a targetted RFC on what advertisers should do.
.
>the RFC could fragilise both IETF societal role and ISOC.

I do not understand what the above sentence means.  I do not understand what
the IAB has to do with it.  The IAB serves several roles but I don't think
it had anything to do with the previous RFC which was produced by this
WG and then went through IETF Last Call and IESG approval.

If you want the IAB to express an opinion, you should be talking to
them, not to this working group.

>and the French parliamentary all day meeting on October 5.

The IETF is generally not very interested in being a partner with
other organizations.  There are exceptions.  Such liaisons are mostly
at the techncial level of the IETF and the other organization alerting
each other on new work, being able to recognize each others documents,
etc.

>>Donald

You seem to have a warped view of all this.  An IETF working group is,
by definition, a tempoary entity chartered to perform a particular
narrow activity and then disolve.  The "decisional legitimacy" of this
WG stems from its following of the IETF procedures including
determination of the consensus of the working group members.  The
opinions of UNESCO, ISTF, EU, etc., etc., are irrelevant to
the WG although, of course, individuals active in the WG who wish to
can pay attention to them can do so.

If you want to write a new and different draft from your point of view
and try to get this working group or the IAB or the ISOC Trustees to
adopt it, you can certainly do so.  But the working group should try
to get the current draft, which I think is in pretty good shape,
polished and out as an RFC.

Donald
===================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1 914-276-2668   [email-masked]
 65 Shindegan Hill Rd, RR#1  +1 914-784-7913(w)     [email-masked]
 Carmel, NY 10512 USA

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:00:46 -0700

Hi all,

Let me make a couple of comments on this discussion.  It seems to me
we are recycling back to the question of "what is the scope of this
document?"  which I was trying to avoid, but Jonathan brings up some
interesting questions that it wouldn't hurt to review.  The following
are my opinions, so feel free to chime in with disagreements.

First, re the whole comparison of online vs. offline "spam."  The
degree to which these two methods are similar or different is almost
100% irrelevant for this document.  This document deals ONLY with
online advertising.  It does make a comparison to offline advertising
to note that the cost of who pays to send/receive it differs from
online bulk email.  This makes bulk email attractive to the spammers,
more attractive than offline bulk mail because from their point of
view it is much less expensive.

The following comments are from various messages of Jonathan's:

>What we are looking at here is the opportunity for the small
>business/small site (NOT the private individual) to "cold canvas" that is
>to say to engage in a marketing effort without infringing the law.   If to

Actually, I think we are looking at suggestions for any individual or
business to advertise without sending bulk email.  While the doc notes
that laws may have a bearing on some strategies, it is beyond the
scope of the doc to explain those laws or take any position regarding
them.

>send a message one must ensure that the recipient is not on the mailing
>black list for advertising and to do so entails paying for the "privilege"
>of consulting that list, and if access to that list is in the hands of
>mail order monopolists who, say, charge $2000 or more for access, then
>free competition is effectively stifled.

While I understand such black lists exist, their use or availability
is irrelevant to the doc.  The doc takes a stand against all
unsolicited bulk advertising email.  So if there is a list of people
who don't want such email, it doesn't matter because the doc says that
even if someone is NOT on such a list, don't send them email.

> What about a virus warning ?  What about a contact message ?  Who
>verifies if an opt in has been accepted and then withdrawn ?  There
>are many borderline cases .....  And what about the video mails of
>tomorrow ?

This doc addresses bulk unsolicited advertisements sent via email.  It
does not address virus warnings or other types of messages.  (It's an
interesting question, however, as to whether some would consider that
spam or not.  But NOT for THIS doc. :-)

The question of withdrawal of opt-in is also interesting.  However,
whatever mechanism verifies opt-in would also verify later opt-out.
Normally this is a mailing list package or web form with appropriate
back-end processing.

>I am arguing the point that it may be more positive to look at the
>mechanisms which are being assembled for control of free speech and also,
>beyond the irritant factor, how to articulate the healthy medium term
>development of the Internet.

Another *very* interesting topic that is beyond the scope of this doc.
I would not touch the issue of "control of free speech" in an IETF
document with a 20 foot pole! :-) Talk about a loaded term!  All this
doc does is make suggestions, alert people who wish to advertise to
some alternatives, and lets them know of a few of the issues.  Neither
do I feel this doc should articulate much about the development of the
Internet.

>I am definitely and unequivocally against unsolicited bulk commercial
>e-mail but the arguments that are advanced are not those which will have
>the sympathy of legislators.  Peer pressure already does a good job and

Legislators are not our audience.  Again, we are not trying to write a
legal doc of any type, nor articulate legal arguments.

>court by merchants.  That in itself is anecdotal.  What is important that

Do you really mean "court" as in court of law?  If so, I would expect
it to be laughed out of court as it is not a legal document and is not
intended to be.  If you meant that merchants will ignore the tips
contained in the doc, that is quite quite possible and something we
discussed before deciding to write the document.  However, it was felt
that it would be more constructive to have some positive suggestions
on record than to have only negatives.  People may use it or not as
they will.  We were not so ambitious as to assume that this doc would
have the force of ANY SORT of regulatory or legal statement and we do
NOT wish to make it do so!

>standards may well be set which could rebound against the aims of those on

It is always dangerous for an individual to speak of "the IETF" as if
one person could capture the essence of such a diverse organization,
but I would be stunned if the IETF gave a fig about whether it were
ignored in societal matters.  :-) This document, this working group,
and the whole of the User Services Area, while very useful (in my
opinion) and constructive parts of the IETF, are nevertheless extremely
tangential to the overall mission of the IETF as a technical standards
body.  Regulatory authorities may ignore the IETF in societal matters,
but this document should not pivot on that fear.  Believe me, those
who attend IETF are very capable of alerting regulatory authorities of
their opinions, but they do that as individuals.  That is not the
IETF's role.

>From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>

Donald makes a good suggestion here.  What Jonathan seems to be aiming
at is a different type of document that is much grander in scope.
While I don't mind a short delay in progressing this one, I do mind a
long delay! :-) I don't want it completely re-written.  I don't want
to return to square one.

But neither do I wish to discourage Jonathan from pursuing the issues
he feels strongly about.  I just think you (Jonathan) are trying to
hang those issues on the wrong hook and we are spending a lot of time
trying to explain the fits and misses as to how your ideas relate to this
doc, which is not that helpful to you or the editors.  I don't think
that advancing this document will work against the ideas you might
wish to put forth in a companion doc.  Think about that as an
alternative too.  (It is possible for individuals to write RFCs; not all
RFCs need to go through Working Groups.)

thanks!
April