In message <5119FEE5.8050800@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@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-gr... Am I missing something? Regards, rfg