Re: Proposed immediate addition to NoteWell use rules.

On 2/1/2010 10:09 AM, Endre Jarraux Walls wrote:
> I certainly agree with Lucy on this one - the language that the addresses
> are property of the IETF is misleading in my opinion. I believe there should
> be language in terms of acceptable use policies, but I believe the fix to
> preventing harvesting should be a technological one and not necessarily a
> legal one. The masking of email addresses in group lists is popular in other
> mailing systems, why not IETF's? Protecting the addresses should be more an
> issue of privacy policy than just preventing spam - the IETF clearly has a
> fiduciary responsibility in this regard.
>    

1)    Because then anyone can continue to use those addresses when they 
figure out another way around this matter.
> On the legal side, I would not oppose language that set form terms of use
> that all members and anyone joining the lists must adhere to.
2)    That is all that's necessary to fix this problem - it will allow 
individuals to seek their own recourse agaisnt the spammers
>   But I'm not
> sure there's much we could do beyond that.
Sure there is - and the fiduciary responsibility doesnt slip away when 
officers of the IETF change roles - the responsibility and failing for 
their period of office is still actionable after they leave office (so 
Lucy - so what you are not a trustee anymore - you can still be nailed 
for this stuff while you were a trustee - and that was my point - 
further, since you are still an IETF "gold" participant the fiduciary 
responsibility remains I am betting. Ask Jorge off list so he actually 
answers you on this one.
> Certainly "outlawing" people from
> harvesting the addresses is impossible, IMHO.
>