[anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 07:11:44AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>On 5/27/2014 6:47 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> "While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not
>> seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are
>> unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such,
>> may well be areas of interest."
>
>
>Hmmm... oddly, that could turn out to be the more useful wording.
>
>It is descriptive and does not really try to be prescriptive (or
>proscriptive), though of course it walks right up to that point.
>
>As such, it paints a a bit of territory that might be 'related', but
>does neither requires nor prohibits traveling in the territory.  I would
>therefore expect wg management to determine salience according to other
>criteria in the charter...

I am not very comfortable with prescribing limits to what people can
discuss, but I'm even less comfortable with any policy that may result
from an over-broad mandate. 
 From my POV, the ideal charter would be one that states "the wg can
discuss and make recommendations on, anything it feels like; but has no
mandate to make policy resulting from those discussions or
recommendations.

In short, I'm trying to prevent a small cabal of "anti-abuse" people
from instrumentalising RIPE or the NCC as some sort of enforcer of
allowable content or copyrights, etc.

rgds,
Sascha Luck