Email: Who Should Pay?

While I'm trying to not attend every technology industry event in the area (hard to do since there are so many), I was drawn into the recent email debate between Esther Dyson and Danny O'Brien at the Roxie Cinema in San Francisco this week.

After listening a 'back-and-forth' for awhile, moderated by Mitch Kapor, someone in the audience suggested that it was a religious debate versus a view of riding a slippery slope - markets or morals - and everything in between.

An EFF Fundraiser, it was entitled Email -- Should the Sender Pay?" Another good point brought up by someone in the audience. Shouldn't it really be? Should 'some sender's pay some of the time?

The event is the result of AOL's announcement of adopting a "certified" email system, which led us down a long road of free speech, the importance of it, the decline of it, trusting in the markets (Esther view), and would the Internet ultimately deteriorate as a platform for free speech? Would spam or phishing decline?

Danny O'Brien's role at EFF is primarily to make their voice heard in government and regulatory circles, in the marketplace, and with the wider public. Danny has documented and fought for digital rights in the UK for over a decade, where he also assisted in building tools of open democracy like Fax Your MP. Interesting background - I haven't been watching his activities like so many in the room.

Esther wrote the New York Times editorial piece "You've Got Goodmail," which set the stage for her perspective.

I would have loved to see more audience partipation; none of the anti-spam guys were represented and as someone asked, "Why are we giving up on going after the serious spammers, even when we know where they are? Shouldn't we be fighting for that and taking a stance?"

It sets a stage clearly and yet some claim that going after the spammers just won't help.

Says Esther, "EFF and MoveOn should let the market decide. Email can't continue to be free, when the system gets this big. I'm pro-choice, not necessarily pro-GoodMail." She thinks that recipients will choose to have extensive white lists and points out that her white and black lists will likely differ from everyone else's lists.

So is it the sender's burden of who to send mail to? Asks Mitch on artificial markets.....is it so bad now that you have to do something pre-emptive to prevent it?

More audience please, I'm thinking. Everyone is tuned in to this one because it's such a controversial topic, yet in the row in front of me, 7 out of 11 were looking down at one mobile device or another. Checking messages, playing a game, sending email? How distracted we need to be even in a heated and interesting discussion like this one. God help board meetings.

SendMail Chairman Dave Anderson is obviously passionate about this topic as he tries to clear up a few issues that just didn't make sense to me, as I ask about how a new billing system would work and why this is a good thing?

Photo taken by Dan Farber. He's everywhere with that magnificant camera. His piece around this is posted on ZDNET. Dan's flickr set of the event can be found here.

Also check out information on commerce sphere and what's happening around email authenticiation right now; moves that will support some things but not all. Are we making progress? You decide.