Brian, On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 04:19:26PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Well, it's essentially the same sentence that nobody has had a problem with, so I feel the meaning has been clear. To create abuse, to control abuse and to make money from abuse.
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.
"While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, nor does the WG presume to pass judgement on such activity, aspects of these subjects may overlap with forms of network abuse and so may, from time to time, form part of the WG's activities & discussions."
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."
Without a clear definition, arrived at by way of consensus, of what "network abuse" is, I would strenuously object to such an expansion of the scope of this WG.
And we're never going to get this. My intention here is to recognise some of the discussion and work done within the WG has already touched 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.
I'm not sure that sentiment is shared universally... There may be attempts again, to create policy to sanction abuse and if the definition should derive from the Charter, this could be pretty ugly. A bridge to be burned when we get there though, I guess. definition, cheers, Sascha Luck PS: I might be talking to you alone here, for some reason, while I get the list mails, my replies don't show.