Re: [ga] Spamming

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hugh and all former DNSO GA members or other stakeholders/users,

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    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.

  ICANN and the IETF as well as the ISOC frequently "Abridge"
free speech or choose to block others from speaking...

>
> 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.

  How true. Good sarcasm analogy here...

>
>
>
> 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.

  Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop with not good reason....

>
>
> 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.

  ICANN and some it it's supporter organizations do not and have never
really supported representation in any open and bottom up manner.  Club
mentality? I think so.

>
>
> 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.

Well Hugh or is it Eric?, again marketing is not education and education

certainly is not done well through marketing.  Nice try though...

>
> 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
>
>
>
>

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