On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 14 October 2008 13:31:06 -0400 der Mouse <mouse(_at_)Rodents-Montreal(_dot_)ORG>
wrote:
Because of the importance of the Internet in general, I would
suggest that RFCs include a legal considerations section for aiding
lawmakers, where relevant.
I really don't think it's a good idea for us technonerds to be giving
legal advice. Just think of the technical advice that lawyers would
give us, and then ask yourself why ours would be any better.
Besides, which jurisdiction(s) would the legal considerations be for?
I guess the point would be to direct future legislation, rather than to try
to reflect current legislation. But, I don't think that RFCs are a great
place to lobby for legislation.
In many jusrisdictions, and in many court cases, the judge will need to
establish the "customs of the trade". RFCs can be introduced to help
inform the judge of these customs. So an RFC can have legal significance,
even if it isn't legal advice, or law itself. We wouldn't want the RFC to
contain material that would mislead a judge in such a situation.
It isn't a matter of writing law that is valid for every country on earth,
but of correctly damping the expectations of spammers for spam delivery,
so that judges will understand that the spammer has "no reasonable
expectation" of delivery. Of course statutes can override custom, but that
is not the business of the RFC.
Daniel Feenberg
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
x3148
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg