[anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 05:05:31PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:

> >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. :)

being equally non-native, I had similar difficulties parsing the
sentence (and don't remember whether or why not I'd have had the
same issue 3 years ago or since) I would appreciate that clarification.

> >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?

I prefer the status quo. The topic of illegal content is a slippery
slope and while ...

> >>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.

... this might be true, I'd prefer keeping strong boundaries even at the
cost of confusion of said new members of the community.  It's OK for
people to want to talk about anything, just a WG in the RIPE context might
not always be the proper venue.

> Looks like they're all going to the list to me, so I think you're good. 
> Procmail does funny things with lists sometimes.

Or the mailing list SW "helpfully" suppressing duplicates.

-Peter