AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Spam is generally content neutral, with unsolicited and bulk being the key tests

So, wih "usually" implying that there can be non commercial spam, it is a definition tht antispam activists as well as the industry should be able to live with.

We do have to see how far this gels with individual laws in various countries though.  For example there is a specific exemption carved out for political email in the US CAN SPAM act.

So while that is a useful operative distinction of what spam is, it is not something that I would support being put into an international treaty.

--srs (iPad)

On 23-Dec-2012, at 6:58, "Peter H. Hellmonds" <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> You wrote:
>> Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk
> communications"  means?
> 
> Your question got me searching and I found something:
> 
> In ITU RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010)
> http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_130.pdf
> on "Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the
> use of information and communication technologies", there is a reference
> saying "that although there are no universally agreed upon definitions of
> spam and other terms in this sphere, spam was characterized by ITU-T Study
> Group 2, at its June 2006 session, as a term commonly used to describe
> unsolicited electronic bulk communications over e-mail or mobile messaging
> (SMS, MMS), usually with the objective of marketing commercial products or
> services"
> 
> It may not be a treaty or a standard, but exemplifies the way this is
> considered.
> 
> Is this helpful to the discussion?
> 
> Best,
> Peter
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
> Gesendet: 17 December 2012 18:31
> An: IGC
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet
> treaty
> 
> 
> On 15 Dec 2012, at 13:04, Roland Perry wrote:
> 
>> The anti-spam industry, and several privacy laws worldwide, have
> established beyond doubt what 'Unsolicited bulk communications' means for
> over a decade. There's no need to start new hares running.
> 
> 
> Exactly where are these well established definitions?
> Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk
> communications"  means?
> 
> And I have not the faintest idea what you mean when you speak of 'hares
> running.' 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t