Jon,
I suggest you take a look at some prior work with PICS, and P3P.
I am not sure that that will be usefull.
I was the person who originally proposed the ultra-extensibility mechanism
in PICS and I did it as a wrecking ammendment. The political situation was
that there was an unholy alliance between the Stalinist wing of the
Marxist/Feminist left (Dworkin/Mackinon) and the Religious Right. Both
factions wanted to establish an Internet censorship board so that they could
have a forum to exercise influence in.
PICS allows anyone to define their own censorship scheme. Each censorship
scheme is identified by a URI identifier and may have multiple dimensions
(sex, violence, rudeness, political alignment) each of which is scored on a
scale.
The idea of multiple censorship schemes was to ensure that there was no
single internet censorship board. This destroyed the reason for the alliance
between the authoritarian right and left factions and with it a good deal of
the support for the bill.
So no, you do NOT want to use PICS for this. You will also find that the
documents compiled by the technical committee are uniformly evasive on their
purpose. They hide behind euphemisms rather than admit what they are doing.
What you want for the purpose of the bill is a single uniform classification
scale. You do not want every spammer defining their own.
I think the bill needs to be read carefully, did the ADV convention ever
make it to Internet standard? I suspect it was experimental.
There are various types of commercial material:
1) Advert, Unsolicited, no prior business relationship, cold calling
2) Advert, Prior business relationship
3) Advert, Solicited,
4) Account, presumably solicited
5) Report of transaction, invoice etc.
The point being that it is vital to allow types 4 and 5 through and may be
pretty important to allow type 3 through.
Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg