AssociatePrograms.com

Adam Murray · **Joined**: 11 Apr 2004 **Posts**: 50

Did they finally pass the new law? What happend?

Guest · Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:47 am Post subject:

John Glube · Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:27 am Post subject: Re: Too soon ...

It is true the vast majority of the world's population lives outside of the United States.

Although the mad daily scramble to get into the United States might raise a question or two as to why, despite all the naysayers people want to get into the United States?

We can decry the reality about the United States, but it is one of the most open nations in the world.

We can point out the flaws within the US system. But each nation state has its own flaws. Here in Canada, by all reports we remain a haven for every terrorist group under the sun, due to our liberal immigration policies. And our treatment of aboriginals is not something to write home to mother about.

In the case of dealing with unsolicited bulk email, it is general knowledge US citizens are by far the major source of the stuff, even though it may appear to come from else where.

Some are of the view the existing delivery system for email is broken and needs to be changed.

The Commission in its call for registry proposals in February understood this reality when it asked for proposals to develop a domain wide registry system with authentication models.

(In late February, the IETF issued a draft convention to describe hosts authorized to send SMTP Traffic, SPF or Sender Policy Framework in short.)

It is interesting to note the USISPA, the United States Internet Service Providers Association in its comments to the Commission on the do-not-email-registry filed on 31.03.04 acknowledged the merit in this proposal.

At the same time, this organization, suggested a domain registry system would impose significant administrative burdens on ISP's (translate - "loss of control to the Commission") and the private sector should lead the charge in developing authentication solutions.

The Internet is a global medium. True, but the hub is the United States and decisions made in Washington have a bearing on activities in New Delhi, Peking, Sydney, Soel, Tokyo, Manila, Jakarhta, Singapore and Auckland to name just a few of the capitals in the Asia Pacific rim.

A quick example. Last year, it became common knowledge spammers were using a series of open relay servers in and around Peking, along with other locations within China.

Some ISP's, frustrated with the situation began to simply block all email traffic coming from China.

Given the limited internet infrastructure within China, this caused significant disruption.

China protested to the United States. The US Government (with a wink and a nod to the ISP's) apparently responded by telling the Chinese we can't prevent US ISP's from blocking Chinese e-mail traffic.

Suddenly, China found all Chinese e-mail traffic routed through US servers was being blocked.

Shortly thereafter the Chinese announced a sweep to clean up the mess and lo and behold the blocking stopped.

Earlier this year China announced a plan to introduce new laws to deal with the problem of using Chinese based servers to send unsolicited bulk email.

Why will prosecutions by DOJ of American citizens have a bearing on activities in China or Brazil for example?

If the US is prepared to throw its own citizens in jail for sending the stuff and the prosecutions can be made to stick, given all of the safeguards available to US citizens, what is to prevent a nation state like China with minimal regard for civil liberties from following suit?

And if not, what is prevent US ISP's from simply again blocking all Chinese traffic routed through US servers?

While all this is very fascinating, the cut-off date for comment to the Commission on a registry system expired on March 31, 2004.

This just means the battle ground as to whether the Commission will implment a registry system now moves from the Commission to Congress, with the report to be prepared by the Commission and submitted to Congress to be one factor, although likely the key factor, in the decision making process.

As an aside, in my view, for what it is worth, the do not email registry concept (involving at least the registry of email addresses) has joined the ranks of the walking dead, although a domain registry system has legs.

And, Wednesday at mid-night EDT, was the cut-off date for filing preliminary comments with the Commission on the rule making process.

The Commission will now take these comments into consideration as it moves forward in writing the rules to implement the CAN-SPAM Act.

We will likely see a draft set of rules some time in the late spring, early summer at which time there will be another round of comments, before the rules are finally implemented, likely sometime in August.

(Although we could all be surprised. The Commission is moving fairly quickly on this whole process.)

Of course, if people from outside of the US don't want to participate in the process, either directly or indirectly, hey, all power to you.

But, don't come back and complain about US arrogance, when the Commission writes rules which end up shutting down your business, simply because the Commission was not made aware and therefore could not respond to your concerns.

John Glube
Toronto, Canada

http://www.learnsteps4profit.com

mdr02125 · **Joined**: 13 Jan 2004 **Posts**: 146

Guest wrote:

John Glube · Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:14 am Post subject:

mdr02125 · **Joined**: 13 Jan 2004 **Posts**: 146

John,

Thanks for the extensive clarification. The point I was trying to make was that, in fact, it has been passed into law, and therefore the comment period(s) is (was) even more important. This is not just general comments before the legislature has hearings or debates the matter before drafting legislation.

Mark
_________________
New England gardening with roses