On Mon 14/Oct/2024 07:25:59 +0200 denis walker wrote:
Colleagues
I know consensus on the new WG has already been declared, but I have some questions on this change. The charter for the AA-WG specifically included abuse of internet users. It included these phrases:
"Consequently, the Anti-Abuse Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse."
"Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and non-technical, that are used to create, control, and make money from such abuse."
The charter for the new Security WG seems to be focused only on "Tackling abuse of Internet infrastructure and resources is a core goal of the WG".
So is the new WG no longer concerned with tackling abuse of internet users? For example spam, phishing, ransomware attacks, etc. If so, where can we discuss these issues? They don't fit within the charter of any RIPE WG.
Hm... aren't users themselves part of the infrastructure at large?
Looking back in time, the 'Anti Spam WG' became the 'Anti Abuse WG' in 2008. The new Security WG still refers to 'abuse'. But we still don't have a definition of 'abuse'. Without even a basic definition of abuse, is the new WG going to be another talking shop where we go round in circles and no one will agree on anything?
The WG membership is still made up of the 'good' guys and the 'bad' guys. The good guys will do what they can to prevent abuse, as long as it doesn't involve significant extra work or costs. Both reasons were used many times in the past to kill off policy proposals for tackling abuse issues. And of course, since 2023-04, we now have the new concept of 'operator convenience' which seems to override any other consideration. The bad guys will always try to kill off policy proposals for tackling abuse as they provide services to the abusers. So the prospect of this new WG achieving anything beyond giving advice (which can be ignored) is seriously limited from the start.
That's a great piece. Thank you. After a few years loosely participating to this WG, I haven't been able to identify bad guys. I've seen policies been proposed and criticized, and often saw good reasons for criticizing them, even if I'm not a bad guy. Best Ale --