<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>I think the
issue of "spam" and "spam control" is highly interesting particularly for what
it reveals about the implicit frameworks concerning overall Internet
related issues. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Spam is and can be approached from a technical and a legal/regulatory
perspective--that is, what are the centrally (top down) determined, centrally
(top down) implemented and centrally (top down) controlled approaches to the
problem of spam--what filters do ISP's put in place, what laws do central
authorities implement, what banishment do central monitors impose and so
on. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>An alternative approach to spam control, which in fact seems to be
far more powerful and certainly more cost-effective is a 'bottom-up"
strategy which has users either individually or more usefully collaboratively,
establishing mechanisms for identifying and diverting spam messages as they
are being received.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The way this seems to be working is that individuals identify messages
they consider spam, they set up a filter against that message which then is
shared with other people. As the network (on-line community) of those sharing
their filters grows, the grid of filtering against the spam messaging grows
apace and there is no particular need to have central authorities to identify
and track/attack spammers (an approach unlikely to be effective in any case
given the ease with which spammers can change their addresses, the very low
entry costs to spamming and so on... (I saw a note pass by a few weeks ago
which indicated that the cost of identifying and running to ground a single
spammer was in the $40,000K US range, and this doesn't include the legal costs
of attempting to try and convict each individual spammer...).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>However, recognizing that spam is a problem which is probably best
controlled through (bottom up) on-line communities and networks doesn't
seem to have filtered into those who treat the Internet with all its
transformational elements as simply another ground for regulatory business as
usual, or who see a way of making a buck by providing technology (overkill)
solutions for what are essentially "social"/community problems.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To extend this further I'm seeing a similar "divide" in the Finance for
the Information Society area, where the bulk of the efforts seems to be in
finding ways of funding governments or (centralized) multilateral agencies or
NGO's to develop top down delivery programs rather than ways
of channeling funds and expertise to communities to help them
develop local solutions to access and related issues. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In the end of course, there will never ever be enough funds for top down
centrally administered solutions -- the technology moves too fast -- and in
the end there is an endless number of potential (even socially worthy)
beneficiaries. But to set up processes where communities are enabled
to achieve access and effective use based on their application of local
resources in relation to local needs (with of course, the availability of some
type of technical infrastructure--IMHO the appropriate use of centralized
capacity and resource commitment), that should be do-able even within a
context of limited donor interest and financial committments.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mike Gurstein</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.</DIV>
<DIV>Clinical Professor: School of Management</DIV>
<DIV>Research Profesor: School of Computing and information Science</DIV>
<DIV>New Jersey Institute of Technology</DIV>
<DIV>Newark, NJ</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(Interim) Chair: Community Informatics Research Network</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT size=2>-----Original Message----- <BR><B>From:</B>
plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org on behalf of avri@acm.org
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Fri 28/01/2005 11:20 AM <BR><B>To:</B> plenary@wsis-cs.org
<BR><B>Cc:</B> <BR><B>Subject:</B> [WSIS CS-Plenary] Spam as an
issue<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Hi,</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>I would like to explore the issue of Spam as an IG
issue.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>My instinct all along is that this isn't an issue that
belongs to </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>Internet governance, but since many, if
not most, other people on the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>WGIG and the CS think
it is, I want to explore my reasoning and find </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>out
where I am missing the point.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>When I look at Spam, and I do get a lot of it, I see two
problems a </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>technical problem and a legal
problem.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>In terms of the technology, if I have the correct protection
software </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>and my filters are well written I don't
ever see 90% of it unless I </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>want to; it goes into a
folder I glance through periodically to make </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>sure
the nets haven't caught something I actually want. In this
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>regard, as a user I don't need to differentiate
between legitimate fund </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>raisers, legitimate bulk
business mail, pornography or whatever. It is </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>all junk I do not want and it is easy to take care of.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>In terms of other technical issues, there is a growing
natural barrier </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>to Spam. As service providers
block prefixes that generate a lot of </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>spam, allowing
spam to leave a network becomes a technical problem for </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>the service provider, how to provide egress filtering. Again
this can </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>be solved by technical methods and the
prefix blocking provides a </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>natural incentive for
those who allow spam to stop it locally.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>Finally there are the bandwidth and intermediate storage
burdens. I </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>tend to see these as market forces
that determine the requirements </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>either for ways to
filter or ways to charge for legitimate bulk mail </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>and to make settlements based on those charges.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>And while the issue of settlements is something I think is an IG
issue, </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>I don't see how Spam can be differentiated
from other bandwidth issues </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>in this respect.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT size=2>I mentioned that I see some of the Spam issue as a legal
problem. </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>There are things that are considered
illegal by different </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>jurisdictions; in some places
pornography, in some places phishing, in </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>some cases
hate speech, and in some places political dissent (not sure </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>I can always tell the difference between the last two). In most
cases </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>these are matters for local jurisdiction and
fodder for the push and </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>pull of legality, morality
and freedom of expression. One issue here </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>is
that I don't see anything that is tractable for Internet Governance
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>here; do we want IG making proclamations about what
is legal expression </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>or not? Personally, I
don't. The main issue I see is that these issues </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>are
not qualitatively different on the Internet then they are in any
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>Media or in any other public means of
communication.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>So, as I said I do not understand how Spam is either open to
IG or is </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>an appropriate goal of IG. But since
I know many, if not most other </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>people, think it is,
I pose the question: why?</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>thanks</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>a.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>_______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>Plenary mailing list</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>Plenary@wsis-cs.org</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><A
href="http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary">http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary</A></FONT>
</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>