Ken:
 
You said:
> IAF does not have the right to cull your list for my name.  Agreed!
>        But neither do you have the right to tell IAF to remove my name
> just because I happen to belong to your list.
 
So what you are saying is that now that they have improperly retreived
your name from a list, it is a violation of *your* rights that list
managers enforce the policies that the list may not be used for such
purposes as was done in this case?  What a crock. You subscribed to a list
in accordance with the policies of that list.  If the policies of the list
are they it cannot be used in this fashion (I postulate this should be
implicit in any list unless otherwise stated), then you are wrong in
telling the list managers how to manage their resources.
 
Just so that you understand I am not a total spoil-sport, I've thought
about possible accomodations in case these IAF folks TRUELY mean to do
right and become a legitimate and respected part of the Internet
community.
 
The only answer with integrity for them is to go back to all the REVIEW
listings they got and remove from their database any address that they do
not have specific permission to keep on file (i.e. like you have said you
would like).  This method ensures that they will keep people like you, who
have explicitly told THEM that you want to continue to be listed, but
remove all others who have NOT GIVEN CONSENT or are NOT EVEN AWARE they
are so listed.
 
If they will not do that (and I suspect they will not because they already
started off on the wrong foot.  Why change step now?), then a
semi-compromise would be that each list owner whose list was raped would
be contacted by IAF and told that a REVIEW of their list had been
retrieved and and indexes prepared from it (they could explain their
purpose in this message).  The List Owner would then be given one month to
grant permission to IAF to continue to retain on file the addresses from
the XXXXX list.  If they did NOT receive permission after one month, they
must purge their system of all the addresses they got from XXXXXX list
except for addresses falling into one of two categories:
   1. People who have explicitly given them permission to store
information about them.
   2. Individual addresses that were obtained from another list whose
owner *did* grant permission to index their list addresses.
 
A final, and substantially less pro-active, alternative would be for them
to remove the addresses from their database that were extracted from
XXXXXX list when the owner of XXXXX list writes and tells them to remove
them.  Again, exceptions to deletions would be:
   1. People who have explicitly given them permission to store
information about them.
   2. Individual addresses that were obtained from another list whose
owner, on his/her own, granted permission to index their list addresses.
 
If IAF will not take steps to do one of the first two fixes, then I think
that the LISTSERV owning community needs to take steps to implement the
third.  Specifically, I am suggesting that a brief "Did you know that the
addresses on your list were appropriated by IAF?" message would be sent to
each and every LISTSERV list owner (although it might be better to just
send to the LISTSERV postmaster for each LISTSERV and let them
re-distribute it to applicable list owners on their system) so that they
could then advise IAF of their request for removal or granting of
continued use.
 
I liked the comments by Jonathan LeBreton <[log in to unmask]> where he
pointed out that the lists that were appropriated are, in fact, protected
by copyright, even though there is no explicit statement of this.
 
All of these options, however, deal with what they have already
appropriated and not what they appropriate in the future.  My feeling is
that a "you may not use my list" directive is an "until further notice"
kind of thing so that when [log in to unmask] pops in for another round of
gathering of REVIEWs, they will be obligated to pass by the lists with DO
NOT DISTURB signs.
 
It may very well be that these folks will become a valuable resource with
reliable data, but they simply cannot do it by retrieving a bunch of
lists, many of which contain subscriptions to gateways and all other kinds
of special-use addresses, none of which were ever intended for direct
e-mail, and doing this in a fly-by-night fashion.
 
Perhaps all LISTSERV lists should be created, out of the box, with CONCEAL
as the default mode.  The WELCOME message would tell the subscriber to SET
LISTNAME NOCONCEAL if they wanted their name to be public.
 
Finally, linda -i didn't think this through <[log in to unmask]> said:
 
> but what I found disturbing was that if you clicked on
> the name@address you searched for, you could send email to that person
> and you have the choice of doing so anonomously.
 
I see simple "mailto:" tags when I did a search for my own name. My
browser reacted appropriately and I do not see any difference between this
and any mailto: tag. You will be using your own mail server to send mail,
not IAF's.  I was not given any choice to mail anonymously.  If you have
such a choice, I think it is due to the configuration of your WWW browser,
not IAF. I am mentioning this because it's probably best to be accurate in
evaluating the actual "threat" this service might mean.
 
Cheers
 
Mark Hunnibell                  Email: [log in to unmask]
KIDLINK Gopher/WWW Coordinator  http://www.connix.com/~markh/index.html