Mr. Sola and Everyone, Mr. Sola, I fail to see a direct relevance of cross posting to spam. I also do not know of a legal definition of spam that is broadly excepted to date. Could you perhaps provide one? Javier wrote: > Definitely the best defense of spamming I have seen in a long time. > > But some of us think that, as part of our consensus building process, we > need to keep spammers out by not allowing cross-posting. > > Javier > > At 10:44 8/10/99 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > I would like to remind you that the GA and other DNSO lists have strict > > > anti cross-posting rules that are enforced to avoid spamming. These are > > > clearly published in the ww.dnso.org website. > > > >The GA has not, to my knowledge, adopted such a rule. > > > >Nor is it within the power of the Names Council to dictate or impose such > >a rule. > > > >Nor is it an appropriate rule. Indeed we have a current example of the > >folly of such a rule as demonstrated in an ongoing discussion that is of > >mutually interest to both the NC and the GA. > > > >If the GA imposes such a rule, I will suggest to the GA that we establish > >a distinct mailing list for our own purposes free of manipulation by the > >names council. > > > >The names council is, of course, free to establish its own policies, > >which, if it involves filtering cross postings, is reminiscent of the > >three monkeys - one with its hands over its ears, one with its hands over > >its eyes, and one with its hands over its mouth. In other words, > >self-imposed isolation and thus increased irrelevancy. > > > > --karl-- > > Respectfully, -- Brian C. Hollingsworth Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet Communications Affairs and Policy Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European Union
