Re: [ga] Spamming

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is a fun one,
 
The actual do's and don'ts of setting up an anti-spamming coordination crosses all lines of the technical versus policy gap in internet governance.
 
First and foremost - do not abridge free speech.
Secondly do not ignore the problem and let WIPO handle it.  All they will do is create a marvelous play ground to further the interests of their IP constituency.
 
 
Begin by looking at this very email.  Why is it the Washington Post requires such information to get into their site?  Fill it out and see if you do not add at least four new groupings of spam within the week. Now you will see that it is not the spam that should be regulated but the development of the lists, or the buying and selling of lists.
 
Here we run butt up against our freedom to travel.  Note that in a form this is an essential element in any free society.  Many say that internal travel restrictions and where you can live was the true make or break point for communism.  Decades ago, in the US the freedom to travel was so hotly protected that driving a car was almost declared an inalienable right.  Is freedom to travel the WWW such a right?  In every country in the world your home may be taken from you in order that society may have a highway where your family home stands - do we want to afford the same right on information superhighways?

The IP connundrum raises its' ugly head again.  They attack freedom of speech for copywrite matters, support it for spamming matters.  They attack the right to privacy to get their lists, support it when it comes to their privacy. They attack the right to travel if it means distributing goods other than theirs and yet support it to exploit foreign resources.
 
Doing the funky ostrich routine and hiding your head in the sand over spamming issues eats at the very core of an open and transparent and stakeholder based representation regarding coordination of this very vital resource.
 
In short, spamming and protection from it, may best be left in the hands of the user, but the making of and cultivation of lists should get the willies regulated out of it.  Remember Marketing is Education and Education is Marketing.
Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Kim and all former DNSO GA members or other stakeholders/users or other
interested
parties,

So what are you suggesting that ICANN do to address spam? Nothing?
or ????.. So far the ICANN staff has done little or nothing at all to
directly
address or deal with spam... Now some of the ICANN staff members
Nanog buddies have suggested he following:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9449-2004Mar19.html
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=04/03/20/129223


Kim Davies wrote:

> J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> >
> > Untrue.
> >
> > ICANN pretends to share in the technical govenance of the Internet. As
> > such it operates the IANA functions. IANA registers the parameters of
> > the Internet technology - that IETF or other specify. One of these
> > parameters is the "MX" DNS RR. It therefore falls into the responsbility
> > of Vint Cerf or/and John Klensin to make the ICANN BoD to solve the spam
> > issue in entering a new RR (I suggest "NX") to indicate the IP address
> > of the no-spam mail server related to a domain name. The same way as
> > they adopted the funny "XN" for IDNA.
>
> How ridiculous. ICANN should not usurp the role of the IETF and IESG in
> developing technical protocols, just because they happen to maintain the
> database of protocol assignments. As I have heard many times recently,
> IANA "operates the spreadsheet" rather than devising the numbers that go
> in it.
>
> What is also ridiculous is the idea that some kind of second MX designed
> for "no spam" would have any appreciable impact on the problem.
>
> kim

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.