At 04:22 PM 5/26/2003 -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2003 12:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Bob Braden <braden(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU>
> So, what happens when the FTC, which is today very business-friendly,
> decides to place no restriction at all on "real Commercial" spam?
> Given the current politics in Washington, that seems like a likely
from what i have heard from participants in the FTC "spam summit" (and
what i viewed in some of the recordings of sessions which were available
online briefly), it seems clear that the FTC has done the math and
understands the nature of the problem fairly well.
Yes ... the FTC staff have been very very good at educating themselves
about the problem because they have had the unqualified support of the
entire Commission particularly the Chairman and Commissioner Orson Swindle.
They have been looking at this for over a year.
In private conversations with them they remarkably well versed in SMTP and
could quote the RFC's from memory.
however, they are tightly constrained by their mandate from Congress. this
is where the real problem lies.
In Washington speak that means they don't have any money.
Charlie Schumer at the FTC meeting offered up 75M in funding ( the C-SPAN
cameras were on ) which someone pointed out to him was half the FTC's
there are at least some legislators who are willing to write legislation
that refers to standards from recognized standards bodies (e.g., the IETF).
this is where the opportunity for the IETF to help lies -- to devise new
standards and protocols which won't necessarily stop spam, but which when
combined with legislation and properly funded enforcement bodies, can stop
or at least cut it down.
First the legislators need to know the IETF / ISOC exists...
the international nature of the problem is undersood by at least some
legislators as well. Senator Schumer (NY) is already on record as believing
that there will need to be international treaties as part of the solution
to the spam problem.
There were two official delegations at the FTC meeting one from France
which is looking at similar legislation and from Korea who spent most of
their presentation apologizing for the lack of effort on the part of the
Korean Government which they now promise to increase.
one of the things that has contributed to the evident lack of progress is
the argument about technical means vs legislative/enforcement means.
neither is really sufficient, it will take a combination of the two.
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>