ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response

2003-12-01 18:29:25
Carl Malamud <carl(_at_)media(_dot_)org>:
I agree that the labels could share the same registry.  But, one of the
things I tried to do in my draft is let somebody else worry about
what the labels are and how they are defined.  It got bootstrapped
with three easy ones, but I'd sure like the FTC or somebody else
to worry about what these tokens really mean and who is
supposed to use them.  So, I'm not sure I'm comfortable
with language in an i-d or rfc like "Commercial electronic mail 
MUST be labeled".  Seems like that belongs in a law, not
a standard. 

I hear you.  And I think I've got the solution to your problem.  Or
*a* solution, anyhow.  You see, I didn't just pull those three labels
out of my butt -- they're the minimum set of categories required by
CAN-SPAM, which actually does a pretty good job of defining them.  My
draft refers their definition to CAN-SPAM, and thus to FTC as the
implementing regulatory authority.  There goes one of your problems. :-)

Remember that my draft is intended *specifically* as a response to the
section 11.2 language in CAN-SPAN that enjoins the IETF to develop a
labeling requirement in conformance with IETF standards; said labeling
requirement would have the force of law.  It's a happy coincidence
that it dovetails so exactly with your proposal, but that was not
my original intention.

So we're in an interesting gray area here.  We need to say MUST so our
recommendation to FTC will have the appropriate meaning in *legal*
and *political* terms.  You say "Seems like that belongs in a law, not
a standard." and you're right;  if the FTC doesn't reject the IETF's 
recommendation, we will in effect be writing law.

And I give it 60% odds the FTC will just adopt the draft whole,
because messing with it would require extra work.  The 40% chance is
that some FTC staffer or Congessman will get a bug up his butt about
other kinds of "bad" content and want to elaborate the keyword system.
In my Visualization of the Cosmic All, the most likely proposal for a
new keyword is DRUGS.

Do you think we can, in a proposed standard, require certain
types of content to be labeled, or might we be better off simply
specifying a carrier mechanism that can be used and let somebody
else do the requiring? 

Mechanism-only would satisfy the IETF's traditional requirements, but
not the request we've had dropped on us by CAN-SPAM 11.2.

                Also, do you think asrg will reach
consensus in time to make a recommendation?  Those people
in DC sure have a lean and mean operation compared to ours.  :)

I think you just helped things along a whole hell of a lot, actually.
Your draft and my draft now reinforce each other, making it
politically more difficult to oppose either one without looking like a
spoiler.

I'll have some more comments on your draft off-list.
-- 
                <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>