"Dr. Jeffrey Race" wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:12:22 -0800, Ed Gerck wrote: > >BTW, how can we talk about "actions that have consequences" in terms of a > >technical solution that the IETF can pursue? > > The whole point is there are NO TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS and never will be. > (There are some technical aspects to improving traceability, however.) Actually, as discussed in another thread, there IS a technical solution for spam. The technical solution is based on strongly reducing the *possibility* of undesired actions (spam) to exist. You don't have to talk about consequences if you deny the very conditions that allow the undesired action (spam) to exist. Yeah, of course, there will still be the occasional message from a stranger that is not what it purports to be. But, at least, MTAs and MUAs would not greet that stranger and their MTA with open doors. The needed Internet paradigm, to do this, is "trust no one." As any parent knows, it is a lot better to make the undesired action unlikely than to enforce consequences for the undesired but likely action. > IETF would not apply the consequences; One more reason for the IETF to stay away from mandatory retaliation (aka consequences). > the victims would apply the > (behavioral) consequences using established guidelines, employing > technical measures already established in RFCs. The victims are the least qualified parties to apply the retaliation you suggest. This principle is well-established in history and legal systems worldwide. That's why we have attorneys, court system, judges, jury, appeals, etc. > IETF and other standards bodies can bless agreed procedures for using > the existing technical steps in new behavioral ways. > > There are two reasons this is crucial: > > 1) Courts often, perhaps usually, defer to declared norms of industry > standards bodies, in establishing reasonableness of disputed > behavior. We can be decisive in establishing these norms. The > courts can't easily act to use the COMPLETELY ADEQUATE EXISTING > LAWS in part because of this lacuna. Are you a lawyer? It turns out that we the majority of the legal opinion is that, at least in those countries with common law such as the U.S., much of the legislation already in place for paper records and paper transactions also applies to electronic records. For example, when Telex was introduced, UK court decisions rejecting attempts to repudiate Telex contracts were based on jurisprudence and laws for contracts made using paper. Telegrams with their electronic dih-dhas were also used (and are used until today!) under the rule of legal evidence. > 2) Normative documents, and personal leadership, convert a group or a > mob into an "emergent structure" (say a business firm, a dance > company, a charitable organization, a military unit, a religious > order, a teen gang) in which the norms absolutely bind the behavior > of the participants, even to death. "to death" seems a bit extreme, but I agree spam is a problem. > I say, in a completely non-deprecating way, that these points from law > and sociology may not be apparent to engineers (or in fact to anyone else > who is not an attorney or a sociologist) but they are completely true > and completely binding on human behavior. Nothing is 'completely true' or 'completely binding' in law or sociology. They are not exact sciences. This is not Pithagoras' formula. While I appreciate your efforts to be emphatic, infallibility is often denied by facts even in engineering ;-) > >The consequences are not > >technical. In addition, they would need to be arbitrated and we know how > >long, ineffective and expensive that can be. > > No arbitration needed. Please re-read the proposal. I did, some time ago. Hence my comment. No arbitration means liability. Who wants it, in business? > My proposal (which received input from many people) is basically just > common sense. That's what we need now. The answers are in. The > proof is in. Let's do it. Now. I am sure you know that common sense is not that common ;-) That's why I believe there must be great caution and moderation in all of this. Cheers, Ed Gerck