[anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/AAWG charter (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/AAWG charter (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/AAWG charter (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Wed Feb 13 00:25:36 CET 2013
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
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/AAWG charter (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/AAWG charter (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]