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.
Hmmm ... I went back and look at section 111.2 of the bill. I'm not
sure I read it as requiring any action by the IETF. Section 111.2
merely says that any solution should conform to IETF standards,
e.g., RFCs 2822, 2821.
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.
But, I don't think we should do that. We can specify protocol
mechanisms and even header fields as containers, but why not let the
legislators and the ftc do their labels themselves? After all,
Korea or the EU or Bangladesh may very well have different labels.
I'd much specify a mechanism and let policy people make policy.
Mechanism-only would satisfy the IETF's traditional requirements, but
not the request we've had dropped on us by CAN-SPAM 11.2.
Again, I don't see 111.2 as being a request to the IETF.
I'm not saying you shouldn't publish your draft, I'm just highly
skeptical you'll reach the rough consensus watermark for
mandating the use of specific content labels.
BTW, I was thinking about your comments and those by Jon about
no-soliciting generating implied consent (e.g., if I don't
have a no shooting shirt on you can shoot me). I'm not sure
I agree. With no trespassing signs, at least out here in the
forest where I live, the sign tells you not to go on a specific
piece of property. But, if you see a driveway without a sign,
I'm not sure I'd go driving up the hill, even if I am wearing
my "no shooting" shirt. :) The point of my draft was a
"go away" sign, which didn't and shouldn't imply "come in" if no
sign is posted.
I'll try to make more clear in the next draft both the implied
consent issue and that the registry examples I specified are
merely illustrative ... I picked maps-ube as one of
the bootstraps because I thought that would make it very
clear that others should load the registry with content.
Regards,
Carl
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg