[WSIS CS-Plenary] Spam as an issue

[John Mathiason]

I tend to agree with Jonathan's analysis.  The problem is finding a way 
to control "outliers" --persons or companies that violate Internet 
norms (which, of course, are not yet even agreed) but are not resident 
(or using servers in) countries that are trying to deal with spam and 
are taking advantage of the borderless nature of the Internet.  My own 
preference is to have an international agreement on the norm (including 
an agreement about what constitutes "spam") and an understanding that 
any state that doesn't deal with it is in violation of the norm.  The 
danger with individual governments, in the absence of an agreed norm, 
dealing with spam is exactly what Yulia has suggested, that it will be 
used to eliminate legitimate expression.  If, however, there is a 
international understanding about the norm, national laws can 
consistently deal with it.   Of course, the next problem is how to 
agree on the norm.

Regards,

John



On Jan 31, 2005, at 10:35, Jonathan Cave wrote:

>
>  It's not clear to this observer how local legal action can begin to 
> tackle this issue.
>
>  Already in 2002, Europe paid €2.25 Billion in lost productivity due 
> to spam, according to Erkki Liikanen then European Commissioner for 
> IT. The EU is trying to do something about it, but most spam comes 
> from outside its borders (back then, the US and China were the main 
> sources). What incentive do net supplier regimes have to act against 
> spam?
>
>  Corresponding to the two perspectives you identify, I see two 
> scenarios: collective, hopefully global and voluntarily coordinated 
> action; or Draconian unilateral responses (opting out by specific 
> communities, censorship of traffic from rogue domains', strict ISP 
> liability, etc.) that could radically cut the connectivity and utility 
> of the Internet.
>
>  I don't think the 'corner solutions' (global government or a 
> lasez-faire trip further into the swamp) are sustainable.
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  J.
>
> At 15:09 31/01/2005, you wrote:
>
> Just a small observation from the above discussion: those who would
>  put spam on the list of priorities have very different ideas of its
>  purpose. One tendency is „to protect the world from spam" (because of
>  the costs, etc.), the other tendency is „to protect the world from
>  protection from spam" (to ensure that no legitimate mail is filtered,
>  etc.).
>
>  I am not quite sure that spam should be included at all but if yes,
>  then in the second alternative (at least, for raising awareness and
>  the like). The first one is really not much different from other
>  issues that are to be solved at the local level (starting from legal
>  definition of spam and so on).
>
>  Yulia
>  _______________________________________________
>  Plenary mailing list
>  Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3122 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050131/42d90d38/attachment.bin