Re: [ga] Re Spam (Was get out of my name space . . .)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

  I must, by in large agree that the ICANN snake, as you put it is inept
in many areas especially of late.  But at least for the time being we are
all stuck with ICANN and as they do have the access to "Helping" in a
significant way and should...

  However in the longer term, it is and has been long past due, your
remedy for dealing with ICANN is not avoiding it but eliminating
it like attacking a virus of disease...  Reform of ICANN has not
been successful. Leaving such dangerous and inconsistent cabals
around produces only more harm to stakeholders/users...


Don Brown wrote:

> See below --
>
> Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 12:58:59 AM, Leah G <jandl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> LG> Jeff Williams wrote:
> [SNIP}
>
> >>> It cannot do anything to stem the flow of mail, website activity or
> >>> anything above the core layer. Furthermore, it has no mandate to
> >>> interfere with the upper layers that operate on top of the core
> >>> protocols. Spam is content management. That should be regulated by
> >>> others, perhaps governments, perhaps not. However, it is the backbone
> >>> providers, ISPs and network management that must work in concert to
> >>> stop spam.
> >>
> >>
> >> ISPs and network management entities cannot carry all or even the
> >> majority of the load...
>
> LG> If they are working together, which many are, to construct methods to
> LG> reduce its impact the best results will come from that effort.  Tar pits
> LG> or honey pots will most likely be a major project.  Also banding
> LG> together to educate mail server operators on security and anti-spam
> LG> methods as well as educating users is going to be one of the most
> LG> effective means to controlling spam.  Couple that with cooperative
> LG> efforts by governments to punish spammers and the results will be much
> LG> better than hoping for organizations like ICANN will come up with
> LG> anything workable or acceptable to those who are most impacted.
>
> LG> It is the entities who are impacted who will provide the best answers.
> LG> They are the ones bearing the cost of the traffic and customer service
> LG> issues, so it is in their best interests to work on the solution.
>
> >>>Goverments can certainly take a stand and make it painful for prolific
> >>>spammers to stay in business.
> >>
> >>
> >>   Yes they can, but they will not do so...
>
> LG> They are beginning to do so.
>
> LG> <snip>
> [SNIP]
>
> I have watched the threads about spam and disagree to a certain
> extent.
>
> ICANN is not the proper venue to control, fix or regulate Spam or
> anything else for that matter. ICANN has demonstrated its indifference
> to the desires and best interests of the Internet Community, it has
> demonstrated its benevolence to certain parties, i.e. VeriSign, in
> favor of its own self-serving and corrupt agenda, it has intruded into
> venues beyond the narrow scope of its mission and it has proven to be
> inept at successfully achieving even its core mission.
>
> Please, let's not give ICAN any ideas, or support, for any further
> intrusion beyond its narrow scope or allow it to assume any additional
> free-lunch agendas which it will undoubtedly screw-up.
>
> Can you imagine an ICANN Accredited Spammer or the VeriSign Spam-Free
> mail service or a WIPO-like tribunal of Kangaroo spammers?
>
> ICANN should be dismantled, since it is not serving the Internet
> Community and because it has become a self-empowered Dictator of
> Internet policy in favor of its own self-serving and corrupt agenda.
> Empowering this abomination further, will be like shooting ourselves
> in the foot.
>
> As laws are introduced, as clue-less Admins begin to figure out how to
> close open proxies, MTA's, etc. and as the few ISP's begin to actually
> enforce their AUP's, spam will move elsewhere due to the profit
> motive. We are already seeing a lot of junk, and spam-vertised web
> sites, from China, Korea and elsewhere.  I think that spam prohibition
> will be about as effective a alcohol prohibition was in the U.S.
>
> I, for one, think we want less (not more) laws WRT the Internet and
> that the community already has the capabilities to address the issue,
> anyway.
>
> As spam has proliferated over the years, fighting it has become a
> definable industry.  Most post office software, commercial and open
> source, includes certain defenses and additional outside applications
> have also been developed.  The community is addressing changes to
> TCP/IP and, I suspect, will continue to address protocol issues with
> an eye toward reducing and eliminating the blight of Spam, as well as
> viruses and other SMTP oriented grief.
>
> I, for one, don't want any more "help" from ICANN, like SiteFinder,
> WLS, WIPO, etc.  The best way to not get bitten by a snake is to stay
> away from it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> donbrown_l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----

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