] From: Trish Forrest <[log in to unmask]>
]To the more general issue. Yes, a code of conduct or some
]acceptable standard agreed upon by all for handling these situations
]might be effective. I don't think anything as formal as you are
]suggesting is realistic in a world where one country holds one act
]as illegal and another views that same act as a right.
I would be optimistic (i.e. "the glass is 50% full, not empty"):
Western countries have their constitutions and law based on Roman
Law. For instance, you may bear arms in the US and not in Sweden.
However, you may not go to college in the US with a pump-gun hanging
from your shoulder.
There are several agreements & conventions (UN, UNESCO, some of them
regarded as International Law as, for instance "The Law of the Sea",
etc.) which have been ratified by most countries. Even in
networking and e-conferences where law may hang behind, there are
convergency processes concerning rights, use & access. I am sure it
would not be _that_ hard to push-together some Senior listowners &
sysops (say, the LISTSERV and MAJORDOMO ones with international
lists to start with) to set up a code covering ethics, law and
common conflicts related to these activities (and a Senior board to
go to when conflicts arise).
] [...] do they not also have the right to restrict it to
non-commercial networks?
As far as I understand, there is a "right" to restrict anything you
would like. However, I ask: Is it ethical to deny access to the
information to individuals who have access to a conference through
commercial networks ?. I am afraid it is not. As a matter of fact,
I am very pleased to know that retired academics, teachers,
researchers, free-lance writers, etc. may follow FISH-ECOLOGY from
their home: They are some of the tax-payers who have made possible
the very e-conference. Furthermore, provided that non-academic
users follow aims & rules, it is just great that hardcore scientific
information reach their very homes.
]I'm not a list-owner, but I suspect you get a representative number
]of non-deliveries from all over. I'm referring to spams.
As far as _I_ know, AOL, COMPUSERVE and DIGEX.NET close down
spammer's accounts [provided that third parties inform them].
Furthermore, XX.COM postmasters reply. And if they don't, they get
fired - So was the case with a former AOL Postmaster who did not
take care of repeated complaints.
I understand some of you see XX.COM as the problem-children. I
would say the problem is not the pistol (service provider) but the
one who spamms (the individual users: commonly small biz,
environmental groups or some other kind of "crusaders").
FISH-ECOLOGY, for instance, is a conference which got a single spam
message when it started (which started a flame war) but never again:
The flags Private, Subs_By_Owner and -most important- the
cooperation from the subscribers to ignore such provocations close
the gates for spamms. Furthermore, a good measure in FISH-ECO was
to make clear that whatever is sent to the conference it is the
resposibility of the original author (included forwarded material).
]I think education would be very difficult for them. They are not in
]the business of 'educating users' but collecting and making $$.
I believe that coordinated efforts from academic listowners may
bring about positive changes. I am sure that "positive engagement"
will be good to all parties -since .COM access will increase
exponentially during coming years and whether we like it or not,
academic conferences will be affected by this.
]I've never seen a Code of Conduct from any commercial network, has
]anyone else?
Positive. DIGEX.NET has one.
]I really don't have the answers, which is why I posted here.
Nor do I and I would like to know what Senior managers like Thomas,
Klassen and others think about this. I am sure their expertise will
give further insight into these issues.
APS/FISH-ECOLOGY.
|
