Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: Another model to consider

[Mike Roberts]

This is all great stuff but completely unenforceable in the Internet 
environment, as we know from the many abuses of WHOIS.  After the 
third party marketing company has got hold of the at large mailing 
list, and after it has been sold numerous times and the members are 
being spammed ten times a day to their great disgust, then what? 
Against whom is a remedy enforceable by a California court of 
competent jurisdiction?

Last summer, too late to be implemented, Esther proposed an opt-in 
option for a public list of at large voters.  That idea seems to have 
some popular appeal.  Some folks don't care if spam comes with that 
choice.

As Karl points out, however, a partly open and party closed list of 
at large voters immediately gets us back to the capture issue.  This 
is also an interesting top down - bottom up decision issue.  If the 
Board were to make a unilateral decision that the at large list is to 
be open for reasons including those stated by Karl, then the at large 
members who do care strongly about privacy and insulation from spam 
are effectively disenfranchised because their only recourse is to 
leave.  If, on the other hand,  the issue is left to the individual 
members to make an opt-in decision, then worries about capture are 
refreshed.

There is no free lunch.

- Mike



At 18:38 -0700 8/21/01, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>  > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 06:05:18PM -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
>
>>  > > IMO, membership lists should be available to members ...
>>  > > ...  Of course, there must be rules attached to use of the
>>  > > membership list such as not using them for spam or commercial
>>  > > purposes of any kind.
>
>>  On 21 Aug 2001, at 15:53, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>>  > Such rules would be absolutely impossible to enforce.
>
>On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, L Gallegos wrote:
>
>>  I totally disagree.  Many memberships have such rules and they
>>  are enforced ...
>
>Yes, you are quite right and Kent is quite wrong.
>
>To illustrate let's look at the obligations imposed by our friend, the
>State of California, on those members who obtain membership lists from
>those public-benefit/non-profit corporations that actually admit that they
>have members:
>
>In Section 6330 (of the Corporations code) under part (b)(1) a member is
>able to obtain the list only "for a purpose reasonably related to the
>person's interest as a member."
>
>And in the same section:  "Where the corporation reasonably believes that
>the information will be used for another purpose...  it may deny the
>member access to the list."
>
>The code goes on in subsequent sections to define how these restrictions
>may be enforced.
>
>And in Section 6338 we have the following:
>
>... a membership list or any part thereof may not be:
>    (1) Used to solicit money or property unless such money or
>        property will be used solely to solicit the vote of the members in
>        an election to be held by their corporation.
>    (2) Used for any purpose which the user does not reasonably and in
>        good faith believe will benefit the corporation.
>    (3) Used for any commercial purpose or purpose in competition with
>        the corporation.
>    (4) Sold to or purchased by any person.
>
>So, we see that there is plenty of real world experience in the question
>of member access to membership lists.  And from that experience abuses
>have been seen and workable corrective measures imposed to eliminate them.
>
>		--karl--