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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

On 23-Dec-2012, at 21:31, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

>> That fraction of a percent of a fraction of a percent is enough to more than repay the costs of the spammer's campaign multiple times over.
> 
> Which is "good spam", to use my earlier definition.
> 

The same economics are at work in both "good" and "bad" spam.  Even more so in "bad" spam because such spammers make extensive use of other peoples resources - hacked servers, virus infected PCs and such.

> In Europe the pressure from "big business" has been to consider that all your previous customers have by default given permission, and they need to "Opt out" to demonstrate their

I am sorry - the US CAN-SPAM act is optout, but a lot of european data protection and other regulations tend towards optin.  As do the australian and canadian antispam acts.  Of course that's not the case throughout Europe - and the laws of the individual country would apply.

Yes, the LINX BCPs were an early, and quite good example of best practice in this area, thanks for reminding me of them.

--srs
-------------- 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