RE: [Asrg] Anti-spam laws do work, FYI. There's proof.

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>]

>  > I don't see how you get from A to B unless there is a large 
>  > number of commercial parties paying for delivery of the type of
>  > email you are objecting to and to achieve that you already have
>  > to be at point B.
> 
> As I said they can most likely use that excuse once.

You can claim that the party is aware of the claim you are making.
I don't see how you get to the belief that the alledged 
contract claim is enforceable. If you start losing cases
this would tend to reinforce the idea that the clause
is not enforceable.

>  > What you are suggesting would amount to inviting the FCC to come
>  > and regulate the Internet silly.
>  > 
> 
> That has nothing whatsoever to do with the charter of the FCC.
> 
> The FCC was originally formed to manage the limited RF spectrum in the
> public's interest and that was interpreted to include mostly a
> licensing system with rules the FCC could defend were in the public
> interest.

Actually that is a carefully constructed post-facto fiction created
by Ithiel Pool. 

As Ithiel would tell you himself, the FCC was originally created as
a censorship mechanism. It managed to maintain its censorship rights
through a set of arguments based on spectrum shortage which as Ithiel
pointed out was an artificial shortage.


> But they're having trouble justifying jurisdiction over *cable TV*
> (except where it affects broadcast TV such as local access issues.)
> And catv is a helluva closer to what most imagine is their
> jurisdiction than internet providers.

They are having difficulty in justifying jurisdiction over *content*.
Their ability to regulate access to ensure other public interests
is not in dispute.

> But I don't see the reasoning that would give the FCC jurisdiction
> over internet providers just extrapolated from communications or
> consumer interests.

I think that if the major ISPs tried to implement a charge per 
email the squawking from their constituents would quickly cause
Congress to pass something.

> Why does the IETF exist? Why not just hand it over to Bill Gates and
> any six people he elects and leave it at that.

I thought it was quite apparent that something of the sort had
already happened. The IETF is certainly not as influential as it
was ten years ago and in terms of influence amongst standards 
bodies is now in the third rank. OASIS and W3C are much more
influential in setting new directions.



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