Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response

["Jon Kyme" <jrk@merseymail.com>]

> >>It seems to us that there is no further research possible within the 
> >>scope of ASRG for this draft, considering its narrow focus. As it
> stands
> >>now, the proper forum for this discussion would probably be the IETF.
> >>
> >>Therefore, what we would suggest, is to submit the draft to the IETF as
> >>a independent submission and then shift the discussion there. The
> proper
> >>forum for this discussion would either be the main IETF mailing list
> (as
> >>a starting point), or the ietf-822 mailing list 
> >>(http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/index.html). If the IETF sends it back to 
> >>us, then we can continue discussing it here.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Surely Eric can submit it *independently* whenever he likes? He doesn't
> > need you to tell him to. Are you trying to say that further discussion
> by
> > the group won't be appreciated - that there's no way such a proposal
> would
> > get group support? Or perhaps support by the chairs is the issue, in
> that
> > support for labelling is seen as support for a particular law?
> > 
> 
> 
> This draft addresses a very specific requirement. The goal of the group 
> is to do research in different areas and present findings. This specific 
> draft does not require research since the guidelines for it have already 
> been defined, and especially considering that the law concentrates on 
> subject labeling specifically, which does not have too many options.
> 


It depends what you call research doesn't it? The group is chartered (among
other things) to "collectively propose and evaluate solutions".



> Additionally, the goal of the draft is to be a response of the IETF on 
> the issue. The formal body that is allowed to make such response would 
> either be the IAB, the IESG or the IETF chair, not the IRTF. Therefore, 
> it seems to us that this belongs on the IETF side, since this would be a 
> policy issue that needs to be defined by them. We do not want to 
> pre-empt their responsibilites, however if they choose to send it back 
> to us, we'll be happy to look at it.
> 
> > Maybe I've got this wrong, and I'm eager to be corrected - surely the
> > output of this group is going to be (in part) IDs recommended to the
> IETF
> > by the group.
> > 
> 
> Yes it is, but see my comments above. The IRTF's goal is to do research, 
> anything that would be standards making or policy issues for the IETF, 
> would go to the IETF.
> 
> > How about if references to any particular "law", were removed? Would it
> > then be suitable matter for evaluation here and eventual recommendation
> to
> > the IETF by this group?
> > 
> > And if not, why not? 
> > 
> > I'd be grateful if the chairs could take the trouble to respond to
> this.
> > 
> 
> It can be a suitable matter for evaluation if effectiveness can be 
> shown. If the only way these schemes are effective is via law 
> enforcement, that would not be a research topic for the ASRG unless we 
> are asked to do so by another body: either the IETF or the FTC.
> 

How we measure "effectiveness" has still to be determined (unless I'm
mistaken). But anyway, estimation of effectiveness is an element of, not a
prerequisite for, evaluation. So I'm afraid that this can't be right.

Of course, legal issues are indeed covered by the charter:
"... will not pursue research into legal issues of spam, OTHER THAN the
extent to which these issues affect, support, or constrain the technology."
(my capitals)
This is a instance where a technology and a "legal issue" are intimately
related and mutually supportive.

So, even though this proposal seems fairly well suited for evaluation by
the group - it's not to be allowed for political reasons (at this time).
I'm not knocking this - it's a valid position, and better for being
explicit.

In a sense of course, this proposal has already achieved quite a lot (not
just noise), whether or not it's put forward as an ID.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify,

JK







--

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg