You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)

  • To: "anti-spam-wg@localhost" < >
  • From: Anne Marcel Roorda < >
  • Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:32:00 +0100

> > Yes. Starting with the definition of "child" and working up/down from
> > there.
> As I've said before, you either apply the laws that are local to the
> country that the material is hosted in or use the lowest common
> denominator if that proves unworkable.

  As local laws already exist, forcing compliance is an issue that
should be delt with by the local police department. It's not called
law enforcement for nothing.

> > There's also a slippery slope you *really* don't want to get on.
> Someone needs to be addressing these issues.  If the internet community
> won't self regulate then the governments will do it for you.  If you are
> worried about having your views heard in a membership of 3000, then
> consider what will happen if these rules are decided by European Parliment
> or Westminster.

  It's not a question of self regulation. Laws are already in place for
most crimes commited on the Internet.

> > Because they *do* have a monopoly in IP etc allocation. So they can update
> > their charter all they want, but if they use that update to abuse the
> > monopoly, that's illegal.
> "monopoly: noun [C]
> (an organization or group which has) a power of control which is not
> shared by other people or groups, esp. in business to make and sell goods
> or provide a service"
> If the RIPE NCC is directed by the RIPE membership (who all have a share
> of the power), can this really be called a monopoly?

  Yes. Please visit your friendly local legal advisor.

 Anne Marcel Roorda
 SlowThinkers                                  Email  marcel@localhost

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>