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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

ITU or any other organization would do very well to move beyond haggling over definitions here to fulfil their additional role of capacity building in developing countries.

I've written papers for the OECD in 2005, the ITU in 2008 .. and contributed to other best practices elsewhere.   These are typically distilled from an industry (and individual experts from academia and civil society) consensus that has been around for over a decade now.  Putting those into practice at an ISP and a national level would help mitigate the issue.

The usual problem is that those that adopt best practices [across policy, regulation, technology, capacity building ..] aren't the problem.  The problem is those that don't adopt the best practices for one reason or the other, and then develop an infestation of spam, malware, criminals or whatever else that poses a threat to the entire world.  

Despite the usual analogies about war, sun tzu maxims and such drawn for security, I tend to prefer public health models, with the difference that an undrained swamp (or an ISP that doesn't follow best practices) is a threat to the overall health of other ISPs on the internet, not limited to say ISPs it peers with (to sort of create an analogy with neighborhoods on the fringes of the swamp).

--srs (iPad)

On 24-Dec-2012, at 18:15, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <E1Tn4l3-00042C-T2 at frodo.hserus.net>, at 15:25:41 on Mon, 24 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> writes
>> Actually the focus in industry (maawg) and intergovernmental (Apectel spsg, oecd) has been on criminal spam.. The same with other, more closed / vetted groups
> >Snowshoe spammers as well as poor best practices at more legitimate >email marketers is getting less and less priority compared to criminal >spam over the past few years
> 
> Glad to hear it, and plenty of precedent for ITU to build upon. No need to invent new definitions.
> 
> However, I cannot agree with their RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) characterising spam as "usually with the objective of marketing commercial products or services", *especially* if the definition of "commerce" has to be bent to include proceeds of crime.
> 
> Apart from the fact that stealing money from my bank account isn't marketing a commercial product of service, but it also serves to unhelpfully blur the line between the 'genuine' clueless marketer and the person trying to sell me a fake Rolex or a share of the deceased ex-President's secret $20 million hoard.
> 
> Today's scam was offering me a fake tax refund, but they spoilt it (not that it wasn't already painfully obvious) by sending me the email eight times.
> -- 
> Roland Perry

-------------- 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