[anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/AAWG charter (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)

In message <5119FEE5.8050800 at heanet.ie>, 
Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:

>Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 12/02/2013 06:43:
>> Again, for clarity, the proposal is that the formal charter of this group
>> be amended to include language which states explicitly that this group
>> may (or shall) work towards the goal, among others, of seeing to it that
>> the use and/or registration of any and all forms of Internet number resource
>s
>> shall be denied to any and all parties engaging in abuse of the Internet.
>
>Ok. The more precise any wording changes can be made, the better, and 
>I'm more than willing to help with this. We can also probably work on 
>the above.

Thank you for your willingness to help.

>> P.S.   Of course, if there is neither unanimity, or a majority, nor even
>> a plurality, in and among this group, or in and among the RIPE membership
>> as a whole, that can come to agreement on any definition whatsoever of
>> the term "abuse of the Internet", however minimalist or uncontroversial,
>> then the above proposal, even if generally accepted, would be utterly
>> meaningless.  If there is no generally agreed notion of "abuse" then by
>> definition there are no parties who would be generally agress to be abusers,
>> and thus, no one to whom this group could or should work to deny number
>> resources.
>
>I've seen various definitions of "abuse of the Internet" from various 
>different parties and, indeed, the conversations over definitions have 
>been both fruitless and lengthy.

My assumption is that at the end, there must have been at least _some_
agreement with regards to at least a minimalist definition of the term
"Internet abuse".  Elsewise, I would guess that this WG would have been
utterly disbanded by now, you know, for lack of direction.

>> (I believe that I saw it asserted here earlier that, even as of this late
>> date, there is no general agreement, within this group or within the
>> RIPE membership as a whole as to what things might or do constitute
>> "abuse of the Internet".  If that is correct, then offhand I would have
>> to say that arriving at some common understanding of that term could be,
>> would be, and should be the first order of business for this group, above
>> all else.  I mean what's the point of having an "anti abuse" group if
>> nobody even knows for sure what "abuse" is?)
>
>See above, although I suspect we could add some examples to the 
>non-exhaustive list already on the charter, which was the intent when it 
>was written. That may be as close as we get.

Speaking of "the charter"...

I had refered to this earlier, I confess, without even having seen it myself.
I just assumed that some such thing must necessarily exist somewhere, in
writing.

Bu I am searching for it now, online, and I'm not finding what I think I
am looking for.  Sincerely I must ask:  Is that my own fault?  (Maybe
Google just simply isn't taking me to the Right Places.)

I found this page:

   http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse

but nothing on that seems to either contain or refer to any explicit WG
charter.  The above page does however, curiously, contain a link to an
apparently now defunct WG, whose page _does_ contain an explicit written
charter:

   http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/inactive-working-groups/anti-spam-working-group

Am I missing something?


Regards,
rfg