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

Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 12/02/2013 23:25:
> 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:
>
>>> 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.

Minimalist definitions, yes, but we have found it useful to not try to 
pin things down too much as that widens the scope of what we can talk 
about and doesn't alienate sections of the community.

>>> (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

The main text of that page is the WG Charter. It may be useful to be 
more explicit on this, but that is the charter.

Brian