[anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Fri May 9 18:05:31 CEST 2014
Sascha Luck wrote the following on 09/05/2014 16:57: > Brian, > > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 04:19:26PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote: >> Well, it's essentially the same sentence that nobody has had a problem >> with, so I feel the meaning has been clear. To create abuse, to >> control abuse and to make money from abuse. > > textbook case for the oxford comma then: "to create, control, and make > money from, abuse" :) I seriously was confused about the meaning of the > sentence. Again, this has been in place for ~3 years, so while I'm open to changing it, it doesn't appear to have tripped anyone up yet. :) >> "While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not >> seen as a central part of the working group's remit, nor does the WG >> presume to pass judgement on such activity, aspects of these subjects >> may overlap with forms of network abuse and so may, from time to time, >> form part of the WG's activities & discussions." > > What do you think about this: > > "Areas, such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not part > of the remit of the WG. Insofar as they overlap with other forms of > network abuse, they may, from time to time, become part of the WG's > activities and discussions." I think that's a little softer than I'd like, but obviously I'm not the only opinion here, let's see what others think? >>> Without a clear definition, arrived at by way of consensus, of what >>> "network abuse" is, I would strenuously object to such an expansion of >>> the scope of this WG. > >> And we're never going to get this. My intention here is to recognise >> some of the discussion and work done within the WG has already touched >> on these items. Also, new members of the community often wish to speak >> to the WG or WG Chairs about them. It is not an attempt (as always) to >> be any sort of network police, nor to pass judgement on such >> activities in different jurisdictions. > > I'm not sure that sentiment is shared universally... There may be > attempts again, to create policy to sanction abuse and if the definition > should derive from the Charter, this could be pretty ugly. A bridge to > be burned when we get there though, I guess. There may be, but it's up to the WG and community to discuss those. The Charter doesn't mean that something has to happen. As you say, a bridge to burn. > PS: I might be talking to you alone here, for some reason, while I get > the list mails, my replies don't show. Looks like they're all going to the list to me, so I think you're good. Procmail does funny things with lists sometimes. Brian
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]