Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66
Colleagues, This is the draft agenda for the RIPE 66 meeting. The WG session will take place on Thursday 16th May at 14:00 BST. RIPE 66 will be taking place in the Burlington Hotel, Dublin. There is still possibly some room on the agenda for the session for something small, so if you have any matters you'd like to discuss, please let Tobias & I know. A. Administrative Matters * Welcome * Scribe, Jabber, Stenography * Microphone Etiquette * Approve Minutes from RIPE 65 * Finalise agenda B. Update * B1. Recent List Discussion * B2. CleanIT Project Close-Off * B3. AA-WG Charter C. Policies * RIPE Policy 2011-06 * RIPE Policy Proposal 2013-01 D. Interactions * D1. Working Groups * D3. RIPE NCC Gov/LEA Interactions Update E. Presentation * E1. "Save money online without killing yourself" - Michele Neylon & ASOP * E2. x-arf - Tobias Knecht X. A.O.B. Z. Agenda for RIPE 67
In message <5135CE73.9030500@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
This is the draft agenda for the RIPE 66 meeting...
No agenda item about defining (or refining the definition of) "abuse"? I'd like to just reiterate my view that all other activities of this WG will be utterly fruitless until such time as a reasonable, rational, and generally accepted definition of "abuse" is in hand. Regards, rfg P.S. I am still not sure if any other things that drew me to this mailing list, or to this WG, or that I have reported here, over time, are or are not considered abuse. (And by that I mean "formally" considered.)
Ronald, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 05/03/2013 20:36:
In message <5135CE73.9030500@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
This is the draft agenda for the RIPE 66 meeting...
No agenda item about defining (or refining the definition of) "abuse"?
Nope.
I'd like to just reiterate my view that all other activities of this WG will be utterly fruitless until such time as a reasonable, rational, and generally accepted definition of "abuse" is in hand.
I genuinely don't think it will be useful to spend time on this. I think an attempt to get a consensual definition of abuse would take the whole of the session in Dublin and every session thereafter and after all that time, I still don't think we would have got anywhere. If the rest of the WG disagrees with me, then we can raise it, but if n = the number of people in the WG, I fear we would have n + 1 definitions.
P.S. I am still not sure if any other things that drew me to this mailing list, or to this WG, or that I have reported here, over time, are or are not considered abuse. (And by that I mean "formally" considered.)
I certainly believe they are, everyone else seems largely to agree, so we're good. See above regarding my opinions on formal definitions. Brian
On 03/06/13 11:48, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Ronald, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 05/03/2013 20:36:
In message <5135CE73.9030500@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
This is the draft agenda for the RIPE 66 meeting...
No agenda item about defining (or refining the definition of) "abuse"?
Nope.
I'd like to just reiterate my view that all other activities of this WG will be utterly fruitless until such time as a reasonable, rational, and generally accepted definition of "abuse" is in hand.
I genuinely don't think it will be useful to spend time on this. I think an attempt to get a consensual definition of abuse would take the whole of the session in Dublin and every session thereafter and after all that time, I still don't think we would have got anywhere. If the rest of the WG disagrees with me, then we can raise it, but if n = the number of people in the WG, I fear we would have n + 1 definitions.
I am pretty sure it will take until the end of the world to agree on a definition. Perhaps even longer.
In message <51372538.60604@hovland.cx>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?= <jorgen@hovland.cx> wrote:
On 03/06/13 11:48, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Ronald, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 05/03/2013 20:36:
I'd like to just reiterate my view that all other activities of this WG will be utterly fruitless until such time as a reasonable, rational, and generally accepted definition of "abuse" is in hand.
I genuinely don't think it will be useful to spend time on this. I think an attempt to get a consensual definition of abuse would take the whole of the session in Dublin and every session thereafter and after all that time, I still don't think we would have got anywhere. If the rest of the WG disagrees with me, then we can raise it, but if n = the number of people in the WG, I fear we would have n + 1 definitions.
I am pretty sure it will take until the end of the world to agree on a definition. Perhaps even longer.
"And when the broken hearted people, living in the world agree, there will be an answer, let it be." -- Paul McCartney
In message <51371EFA.3030502@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
P.S. I am still not sure if any other things that drew me to this mailing list, or to this WG, or that I have reported here, over time, are or are not considered abuse. (And by that I mean "formally" considered.)
I certainly believe they are, everyone else seems largely to agree
Then why hasn't anything been done? I reported a set of blatantly, provably, outrageously fradulent networks here over six weeks ago now. As far as I can tell, they are all still on the books (in the RIPE data base) and all still operating with total and utter impunity... still announcing routes to innumerable IPv4 blocks registered to innumerable utterly fradulent and fictitious entities, all of which were transparently and deliberately created, out of whole cloth, by a single party or entity, entirely and only as a ruse to trick RIPE NCC out of huge quantities of IPv4 addresses so that those could then be sub- leased to several different snowshoe spammers. (None of this is speculation. I have the evidence that clearly supports every charge I've just made, and would have provided it to anyone who asked, but apparently nobody, either here or elsewhere, gives or gave enough of a damn to even ask to see any of it.) RIPE NCC knows all about this stuff, and they haven't lifted a finger in over six weeks to do squat about any of it. And I daresay that it now seems abundantly likely that we will see action out of the College of Cardinals in Rome long before we see any out of RIPE NCC on this issue. Personally, I think this indefensible and abject inaction makes a mockery of you, me, this working group, the Internet as a whole, and every person who, like me, has invested even a moment of their time, effort, or intellectual abilities to try to ferret out and then report these kinds of outrageously crooked operations to ``responsible authorities''... and I use the term loosely. I mean what's the point? I could have more profitably invested my time and energy in rearranging the contents of my sock drawer. (And I doubt that this point will be lost on any others who might likewise be tempted to work to make the Internet a better place for all. Why bother? It won't be appreciated and more to the point, it won't have any effect.) I see only two possibilities. Either what I reported is not actually and formally considered to be ``abuse'', or else _rectifying_ ``abuse'', even of the most blatant, fradulent, wasteful, and destructive kind, is now provably not on anybody's official TO-DO, list. You claim that it is not the former. If it is the latter, then all activities of this working group, past, present, and future, may, in my opinion, rightfully be derided as being nothing more than exercises in mental masturbation and bureaucratic mumbo jumbo yielding absolutely nothing of value. If the point of this WG is merely to _talk_ about network abuse, then I'm confident that it will go down in the history books as having been a great success.
so we're good.
Speak for yourself please. To quote the Lone Ranger's trusty (American-)Indian sidekick Tonto ``What do you mean WE kimo sabe?''
participants (3)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Jørgen Hovland -
Ronald F. Guilmette