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

On Tuesday 12 February 2013 07.43, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> 
> In message <F8C0B65D-DF17-42A5-8A46-98320B795704 at steffann.nl>, 
> Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:
> 
> >rfg wrote:
> >> Not being a member of the WG myself, it is reasonable to assume, I
> >>think, that I would not be at all a proper person to make a motion to
> >>modify the charter in the manner described.  I nontheless hope that some
> >>member in good standing will see fit to do so.
> >
> >
> >You're wrong there: if you are on this mailing list then you are part of
> >the WG. There is no formal membership or anything like that. Just people
> >working together. You don't have to be the one to make a motion to
> >modify the charter, but feel free to do so if you want to.
> 
> Very well.  Please consider it so moved.
> 
> 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 resources
> shall be denied to any and all parties engaging in abuse of the Internet.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> rfg
> 
> 
> 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 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?)

Wrong !
Sending Spam ( unsolicited massmail ) has been unacceptable since 1985 and was
once punished with "Internet Deathpenalty"( isolation ).

Today Spam seems to be ignored since we pay dearly for mechanical ways of filtering,
with varying success. Still Spam is not even a crime in many countries, and in
others like sweden it's not really investigated nor punished.

Spam is in addition to marketing purposes sometimes used as a vehicle for fraud or virus
but it's still Spam.

Why don't we do something against it ??? 
> 
> 

-- 
        Peter Håkanson   

        There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
        again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
        ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )