From: Jim Youll [mailto:jim(_at_)media(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu]
1 - with what authority do you speak? The website for the ESPC
initiative does not list any leaders or others who are publicly said
to speak authoritatively on behalf of the other members.
I have been heavily involved with the development of the proposal. I
just checked the web site myself, and it is seriously lacking. I'll
try to get this addressed.
2 - my greatest concern (I cannot speak for others here) is not those
mailers who are well-behaved of their own initiative, but all the
rest. Why do you suppose your organization will be able to improve
things? If your few members are not already well-behaved, what is
their incentive to stay in the organization and suffer "punishment"
and for that matter, what is the worst you can do to them? If they
are not well-behaved now, what is their motivation in forming this
organization? To put this most plainly, what can you offer to
demonstrate that this is not simply a lobbying effort?
Basically by introducing accountability. As ISPs and others transition
to using the new information by which they can hold senders accountable,
it will get harder and harder to send mail (and certainly volume mail)
if you aren't willing to be held accountable. There is an objective
rating system, and the "punishment" is a poor score. Presumably, most
people won't accept mail from poor scoring senders. The rating system
has to be run by a third party - not the ESPC or any of it's members.
The motivation in making this proposal is to end spam. Spam is a huge
industry problem and it affects us both directly and indirectly.
You raise some very good questions and they deserve a fuller answer than
I have given here. I am working with the other ESPC members to put together
at least a short whitepaper as soon as possible, hopefully within a couple
weeks.
I will be pretty tied up for the remainder of this week, and may not get
back to questions from this list promptly.
Margaret.