[12179] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: "Arizona Lawyers Form Company..."
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Sirbu)
Sun May 8 22:22:02 1994
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 21:19:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marvin Sirbu <ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <0097E22B.6F8A1320.32@indigo.mese.com>
News that Cantor and Siegel have acquired their own host, and could
conceivably decide to start their own network simply reinforces the
arguments that I made in an earlier post. Members of the CIX will need
to adopt policies regarding what is acceptable traffic, and agree that
they will only accept traffic from members who adhere to the those
polices.
Marvin Sirbu
Excerpts from internet.com-priv: 21-Apr-94 Discouraging unwanted adver..
by Marvin Sirbu@andrew.cmu.
>
> As the recent "Green Card" email has made clear, the problem of unwanted
> advertising is quite real. Solutions are quite difficult. The
> following ideas provide one model.
>
> A. We need a new RFC which would define a new mail header "Advertisement:"
>
> B. Network Service Providers (NSPs) should have an AUP(!!) which states
> that any customer who transmits email that is an advertisement must mark
> the mail with the "Advertisement:" header.
>
> C. The CIX should agree that they will only accept members and carry
> traffic without settlements for member networks who adopt the AUP in
> point B.
>
> What would be the result of these steps?
>
> 1.) Users would begin to program their mail readers to automatically
> delete messages marked as "Advertisement:" except perhaps within certain
> defined bboards. Systems which provided netnews forwarding or listservs
> could program them to automatically delete messages marked
> Advertisement: if they wished to. Newsservers might allow such messages
> only in specific news groups in which such messages would be deemed
> appropriate. (e.g. comp.sys.new-products.ads) [or market.*]. No one
would be
> prevented from sending forth a message marked Advertisement, but others
> could then make their own decisions about what to do with such messages.
>
> 2) There is often a fine line between what is an ad and what is helpful
> information about a product or service that fulfills a need someone
> inquired about. Marking the message alters the burden of proof. If a
> message is marked Advertisement: the NSP is obliged by its terms of
> service to carry the traffic. If it is not so marked, the NSP can make
> the decision about whether it was a violation of the AUP and choose to
> terminate service to the offender without recourse. A sensible NSP will
> tolerate a few transgressions by the ignorant without pulling the plug;
> knowing and deliberate abuse of the system as in the Green Card incident
> would prompt swift action without fear of a retaliatory lawsuit.
>
> 3) Point B above is necessary to prevent some enterprising advertiser
> from forming his own network, joining the CIX, and then flooding the net
> with advertising messages that are not marked Advertisement: I realize
> that the CIX was formed to escape one form of an AUP, but I suggest to
> you that if the CIX does not eventually adopt some sort of policies to
> deal with the problems that the Green Card ad represents, the usefulness
> of the net will surely be diminished greatly in the future by
> recurrences of the Green Card problem, and that this will reduce the
> market for CIX members' services.
>
> Readers of this list might reflect on why the advertising problem has
> never occurred on Prodigy, Compuserve or AOL?
>
> 1) They charge for messages! No one can afford to send messages to
> thousands of users mailboxes (except the system operators themselves --
> I was always getting messages on Prodigy by the sysop touting some new
> feature)
>
> 2) They have an AUP! Prodigy, viewing itself as an electronic
> publisher, reserves the right to remove posts to its various bboards if
> they are "inappropriate".
>
> Of these two approaches, the second seems more consistent with the
> traditions of the Internet than the first.
>
> Marvin Sirbu
> Carnegie Mellon
>
> P.S. Those who have followed the debates over dial-a-porn telephone
> services will recognize the above approach as similar to that adopted by
> the FCC to deal with "indecent" material without violating first
> ammendment rights. For the "Advertisement:" header, substitute "use the
> 576- exchange". For automatic filtering of messages marked
> "Advertisement:" substitute "default blocking of the 576 exchange" And
> for arguments about when is a message an Advertisement substitute "the
> burdern of proof of whether a dial-a-porn service is guilty of
> 'distributing indecent material to minors' shifts depending upon whether
> it was listed on the 976 exchange or the 576 exchange." Point C above
> is unnecessary, since FCC rules automatically apply to all telephone
> NSPs.
