Subject: Re: Wrap-Up Matters

From: ColorNet Robin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:30:47 +0200

[email-masked] a écrit:
>To all;
>
>I've posted the most recent version of the draft to the website:
>
>http://home.att.net/~tedgavin/draft-ietf-run-adverts-01.txt
>
>Please review and return comments as soon as possible for consideration
>and/or inclusion. I have tried to include all comments made thus far
>regarding the addition or change of materiel. If I have omitted something,
>it is very likely that it was an oversight; so if any of you feel
>something
>should be added, now is the time to speak up!
>
>We are waiting for Jonathan's synopsis of the French Parliamentary
>conference which started on Monday, and will have some brief discussion
>regarding what to include on that front.
>
>We are still on-track for a submission for Draft-status-renewal next week.
Good Evening,

Sorry for the delay in replying but I'm snowed under on several fronts

Regarding the draft itself there is one small item - the data does not
seem to have been incorporated.

- The alienation of the vast majority of the recipients of an advertising
message
< need some hard data on this>

< - The damage or loss of credibility in the advertiser's market <
< need some hard data here too>
............................

It has been pointed out to me that the guidelines laid down for the draft
are such that many of my comments are outside them.  I may thus have
sounded "out of court" but at any rate that a far broader IESG scope will
be offered for the next draft concerning SPAM.  With due attention to
DIGITAL SIGNATURES, CERTIFICATION, PRIVACY, and commercial/non commercial
SPAM definitions.  What concerns me is that the recent announcement of the
FTC is welcome here (as it should be) when it openly supports feelings we
all share.  Should in future it or other regulatory bodies especially in
Europe, or comments coming out of the next GBD round, displease, that in
itself will weaken the independance of civil society representatives.
IMHO that the freedoms to which we all adhere are fragile, and that a new
term is coming out of the woodwork of and that is CO-REGULATION.  Little
of what follows bears directly on SPAM but it may be relevant to bear it
in mind in the context of the planned World Commercial negotiations

The phrase was used by a number of speakers yesterday, and it was
specifically underlined that CO-REGULATION is to be privileged as long as
the REGULATOR gets (most of) what he wants.

Among the ministerial speakers at the Parliamentary conference on Internet
and the Law were Catherine Trautmann, minister of Culture, Dominique
Strauss Kahn minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice Elisabeth
Guigou who rounded up the day's proceedings with a speech that lasted over
an hour.  A number of policy statements were made which though there was
only a passing mention of SPAM should be borne in mind

The speech has not be translated into English but for the url in French it
makes interesting reading
http://www.justice.gouv.fr/discours/d051099.htm

The conclusions of the preamble
- En premier lieu,la société de l’information ne bouleverse pas de fond en
comble nos catégories les plus éprouvées du droit civil comme du droit
pénal (I).
I.T. do not overturn civil and penal law - but make it difficult to
effectively prosecute until the culprits can be identified.
- En second lieu, la protection des données personnelles et de la vie
privée constituent un enjeu de toute première importance (II).
Privacy protection is a strategic issue
ces deux sujets ne pourront manquer de s’articuler autour de l’intégration
européenne et de la coopération internationale
European Community Law and International Legal Harmonisation will be
actively encouraged

./. including comments on cookies

.....vigilance à l’égard des déclarations de traitements comportant
l’indication d’un transfert de données vers un pays tiers à l’Union
européenne.  prendre, si nécessaire, des mesures provisoires en cas de
projet de transfert de données vers un pays qui n’assurerait pas un niveau
de protection des libertés suffisant
On the surface this says that no personal information should be exported
outside the EEC to countries which do not apply EEC data protection rules.
 ON ANOTHER LEVEL This means in the case of SPAM that within around six
months it could well be illegal for opt in and opt out lists to be
transferred outside the European Community.  Or for that matter that
details of subsidiary companies payment or health records be transferred
to the head office of a US Corporation.  We already have seen the
interesting legal precedent here of Volkswagen US.

Among the other points raised was the transnational ability to recognise
and to act upon any infringement in one part of the EEC directly in
another part if necessary - and that has a lot of implications in the area
of unsolicited e-mail of whatever nature.

IMHO feel that the draft may be ignored as irrelevant by the e-marketer
(who in many cases in Europe is held as reflecting a passing phase or
growing pains of the network) until the latter in his turn falls "victim"
(crocodile tears allowed :=) ) to a game of GO between "big business" GBD
and a common law coat peg conveniently allowing the legislator to control
the free circulation of information.   Whatever those on the list may
feel, the government regulator draws a total parallel between offline and
online junkmail and spam.  He is obliged to because the RULE OF CYBERLAW
for the Europeans has been legally confirmed as an extraterritorial
extension of NATIONAL and TRANSNATIONAL LAW.  The difference of cost
acquisition or expedition be important for the RUN is one thing - but it
is totally irrelevant when it comes to legislation in Europe.  But it
should be borne in mind that the RFC's are as such part of a particular
stage of consensual netiquette and as such can be used or misused by those
whose motives are far from neutral.  There is an infowar at present and
Europe has taken the initiative in firing shots at the soft underbelly of
America's view of the internet, privacy protection.

My personal view is that, apart from sales proposals of all natures to
minors, the issue of SPAM control may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory, a
milestone battle in the war for "cybercontrol" and as such the more
visible and offensive examples need curbing (even eliminating).
Nevertheless, there is more to concensus concern  NETIQUETTE, INTERNET
COMMUNITY, GBD and GOVERNMENT (CO)REGULATION than meets the eye.

Best regards Jonathan

---

From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 08:56:55 -0400

> < need some hard data here too>
        Refresh your browser? Those references were incorporated.
> all share.
        I agree. In particular, though, the recent FTC announcement is
focused on fraud, not general business conduct.

        [snip some good points]

        Jonathan, if it helps - I am going to proposed a RUN-like function
within the ISTF...I'm in the process of drafting the proposal now. I believe
that, given the differing nature of the IETF and ISTF, there is greater
viability to be had in influencing governmental process with the ISTF rather
than here.

        Regarding the nature of this draft, all I will say is:

        We have to start somewhere.

        Ted

---

From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:02:10 -0400

> Minor changes in Appendix A:
>
        All three suggestions incorporated.

        Thanks!

        Ted