Working Group Charter
Colleagues, For the past couple of RIPE meetings the charter (as per http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse ) has bee mentioned on the agenda, but not much has happened. While I note that there hasn't been a huge call for change (nor do I believe much change is required), I'd like to propose a slightly altered Charter in advance of our meeting on Thursday. Of course that is not to suggest that discussion should be limited to that meeting. The discussion should take place here, mainly because this is the right place for it, but also given the time limitations we have at RIPE68. The change I'm suggesting is to this section: "It is considered difficult for this charter to include an exhaustive list of abuse types that would be considered within the scope of this working group, not least because this is expected to change over time. However an initial list can be stated and any necessary additions can be made. Spam via SMTP Spam via VoIP (SPIT) Spam via IM Webforum/blog Abuse All systems and mechanisms, technical and non-technical used to create, control and make money from such abuse. It is important to note that areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen to be part of the remit of the working group." I would instead propose: "It is considered difficult for this charter to include an exhaustive list of abuse types that would be considered within the scope of this working group, not least because this is expected to change over time. The list below is relevant at time of writing, but any necessary additions, subtractions or changes can be made. Spam via any medium Webforum/blog Abuse Denial-of-service attacks All systems and mechanisms, technical and non-technical used to create, control and make money from network abuse. While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may well be areas of interest." I believe this properly reflects the work the WG has undertaken thus far and the discussion both on list and at meetings. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
Brian, On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:55:47PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
All systems and mechanisms, technical and non-technical used to create, control and make money from network abuse.
to begin with, this sentence appears to fail grammatically even in the original text. Does "create, control and make" really refer to "money"? I also consider the new text over-broad. Without defining what "network abuse" is, you are potentially putting any commercial activity on the Internet under the remit of this WG.
While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may well be areas of interest."
This is a statement without any evidence to back it up. Why should "hosting illegal content" (illegal in which jurisdiction, under which laws?) be "unquestionably" bound up with "other forms of network abuse"? As an example from the RIPE service region, hosting a gay website is now, AIUI, illegal in Russia. How, exactly, would this be "bound up with other forms of network abuse"? 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. rgds, Sascha Luck
Sasha, Sascha Luck wrote the following on 09/05/2014 15:58:
Brian,
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:55:47PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
All systems and mechanisms, technical and non-technical used to create, control and make money from network abuse.
to begin with, this sentence appears to fail grammatically even in the original text. Does "create, control and make" really refer to "money"? I also consider the new text over-broad. Without defining what "network abuse" is, you are potentially putting any commercial activity on the Internet under the remit of this WG.
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.
While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may well be areas of interest."
This is a statement without any evidence to back it up. Why should "hosting illegal content" (illegal in which jurisdiction, under which laws?) be "unquestionably" bound up with "other forms of network abuse"?
As an example from the RIPE service region, hosting a gay website is now, AIUI, illegal in Russia. How, exactly, would this be "bound up with other forms of network abuse"?
IANAL, neither are you, but I feel positive the Russian Federation would disagree with that blanket statement. :) That said, I do take your point. We could just go with: "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."
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. Please suggest other text if you have it. Thanks, Brian, Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
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.
Sascha Luck wrote the following on 09/05/2014 16:57:
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.
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. :)
"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."
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?
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.
There may be, but it's up to the WG and community to discuss those. The Charter doesn't mean that something has to happen. As you say, a bridge to burn.
PS: I might be talking to you alone here, for some reason, while I get the list mails, my replies don't show.
Looks like they're all going to the list to me, so I think you're good. Procmail does funny things with lists sometimes. Brian
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
That is a hair that need not be split. The meaning and intent are perfectly clear. And the meaning of abuse is varied enough, and ever changing, that it would not be wise to get bogged down in definitions. On 10-May-2014 9:09 pm, "Sascha Luck" <ripe-lists@c4inet.net> wrote:
Brian,
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:55:47PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
All systems and mechanisms, technical and non-technical used to create, control and make money from network abuse.
to begin with, this sentence appears to fail grammatically even in the original text. Does "create, control and make" really refer to "money"? I also consider the new text over-broad. Without defining what "network abuse" is, you are potentially putting any commercial activity on the Internet under the remit of this WG.
While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not
seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may well be areas of interest."
This is a statement without any evidence to back it up. Why should "hosting illegal content" (illegal in which jurisdiction, under which laws?) be "unquestionably" bound up with "other forms of network abuse"?
As an example from the RIPE service region, hosting a gay website is now, AIUI, illegal in Russia. How, exactly, would this be "bound up with other forms of network abuse"? 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.
rgds, Sascha Luck
On 5/10/2014 9:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
That is a hair that need not be split.
The meaning and intent are perfectly clear.
And the meaning of abuse is varied enough, and ever changing, that it would not be wise to get bogged down in definitions.
Perhaps small re-wordings, to capture the above, without (intending to) change the substance of the existing charter: Draft revision of <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse> As the Internet has evolved, so has the scope and scale of network abuse. Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is often merely a symptom of deeper abuse such as viruses or botnets. Consequently the Anti-Spam Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse. The technical details of spam and other abuse constantly vary, in terms of application channel and technique. Channel examples include SMTP, SIP, XMPP and HTTP. Examples of techniques range from buffer overrun to social engineering. Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and non-technical, that are used to create, control and make money from such abuse. Outside of scope are areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content. The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects of abuse, with the following goals: Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409 but covering a wider range of possible abusive behaviours. Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within the RIPE region such as ISPs, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies on strategic and operational matters. Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical methods of preventing or reducing network abuse. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
+1 On Saturday, May 10, 2014, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
On 5/10/2014 9:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
That is a hair that need not be split.
The meaning and intent are perfectly clear.
And the meaning of abuse is varied enough, and ever changing, that it would not be wise to get bogged down in definitions.
Perhaps small re-wordings, to capture the above, without (intending to) change the substance of the existing charter:
Draft revision of <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse>
As the Internet has evolved, so has the scope and scale of network abuse. Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is often merely a symptom of deeper abuse such as viruses or botnets. Consequently the Anti-Spam Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse.
The technical details of spam and other abuse constantly vary, in terms of application channel and technique. Channel examples include SMTP, SIP, XMPP and HTTP. Examples of techniques range from buffer overrun to social engineering.
Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and non-technical, that are used to create, control and make money from such abuse.
Outside of scope are areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content.
The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects of abuse, with the following goals:
Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409 but covering a wider range of possible abusive behaviours.
Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within the RIPE region such as ISPs, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies on strategic and operational matters.
Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical methods of preventing or reducing network abuse.
-- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
-- --srs (iPad)
Dave, Thanks for this, Dave Crocker wrote the following on 10/05/2014 18:20:
On 5/10/2014 9:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
That is a hair that need not be split.
The meaning and intent are perfectly clear.
And the meaning of abuse is varied enough, and ever changing, that it would not be wise to get bogged down in definitions.
Perhaps small re-wordings, to capture the above, without (intending to) change the substance of the existing charter:
Draft revision of <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse>
As the Internet has evolved, so has the scope and scale of network abuse. Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is often merely a symptom of deeper abuse such as viruses or botnets. Consequently the Anti-Spam Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse.
The technical details of spam and other abuse constantly vary, in terms of application channel and technique. Channel examples include SMTP, SIP, XMPP and HTTP. Examples of techniques range from buffer overrun to social engineering.
Anti-Abuse Working Group, but other than this, it's great, thanks.
Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and non-technical, that are used to create, control and make money from such abuse.
Outside of scope are areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content.
The problem I see here (but the WG might disagree) is that we do talk about the above and the WG has expressed interest in same, hence my wish to at least acknowledge this. Sasha's language here was: "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." which I quite like.
The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects of abuse, with the following goals:
Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409 but covering a wider range of possible abusive behaviours.
Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within the RIPE region such as ISPs, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies on strategic and operational matters.
Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical methods of preventing or reducing network abuse.
So I suppose my proposal here would be to run with Dave's text, except for the part about cybersquatting & illegal content, where I would drop in Sascha's. What do you all think? Thanks, Brian
On 5/27/2014 2:07 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Outside of scope are areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content.
The problem I see here (but the WG might disagree) is that we do talk about the above and the WG has expressed interest in same, hence my wish to at least acknowledge this. Sasha's language here was:
"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."
which I quite like.
I quite like the tone of the language. It's almost lyrical and literary. However as for utility in a working group charter, I don't know what the second sentence means. A more general form of that sentence highlights the problem with the construction and it's vagueness: Insofar as something that is outside the wg scope 'overlaps' with something inside the wg scope, it's ok for the wg to discuss it. My guess is that it's the something inside the scope that is what will really be talked about, where the other stuff might be 'mentioned' but isn't really what will (or should) be talked about. And what does it mean to "overlap", in technical or operations terms? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Dave Crocker wrote the following on 27/05/2014 12:50:
On 5/27/2014 2:07 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Outside of scope are areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content.
The problem I see here (but the WG might disagree) is that we do talk about the above and the WG has expressed interest in same, hence my wish to at least acknowledge this. Sasha's language here was:
"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."
which I quite like.
I quite like the tone of the language. It's almost lyrical and literary.
However as for utility in a working group charter, I don't know what the second sentence means.
A more general form of that sentence highlights the problem with the construction and it's vagueness:
Insofar as something that is outside the wg scope 'overlaps' with something inside the wg scope, it's ok for the wg to discuss it.
My guess is that it's the something inside the scope that is what will really be talked about, where the other stuff might be 'mentioned' but isn't really what will (or should) be talked about.
And what does it mean to "overlap", in technical or operations terms?
It's a fair question, especially as me knowing what it means isn't the most useful thing, I wrote most of this charter and it's all in my head. :) I'll also let Sascha respond as well, of course. What I'm trying to capture is the delicate balance between not wanting to make the WG about copyright etc, but to be able to talk about the effects that these issues can have on networks and the novel methods/interesting procedures operators and others use to find them, remove them and reveal other badness around them. This is of interest to the community and to law enforcement, but it's difficult to class as network abuse. This is the original language I used here: "While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may well be areas of interest." but there were comments about that, so trying to find a different form of text to thread that needle. Brian
On 5/27/2014 6:47 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
This is the original language I used here:
"While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may well be areas of interest."
Hmmm... oddly, that could turn out to be the more useful wording. It is descriptive and does not really try to be prescriptive (or proscriptive), though of course it walks right up to that point. As such, it paints a a bit of territory that might be 'related', but does neither requires nor prohibits traveling in the territory. I would therefore expect wg management to determine salience according to other criteria in the charter... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
On 5/27/2014 6:47 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
This is the original language I used here:
"While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may well be areas of interest."
Hmmm... oddly, that could turn out to be the more useful wording. It is descriptive and does not really try to be prescriptive (or proscriptive), though of course it walks right up to that point. As such, it paints a a bit of territory that might be 'related', but does neither requires nor prohibits traveling in the territory. I would therefore expect wg management to determine salience according to other criteria in the charter... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 07:11:44AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/27/2014 6:47 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
"While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may well be areas of interest."
Hmmm... oddly, that could turn out to be the more useful wording.
It is descriptive and does not really try to be prescriptive (or proscriptive), though of course it walks right up to that point.
As such, it paints a a bit of territory that might be 'related', but does neither requires nor prohibits traveling in the territory. I would therefore expect wg management to determine salience according to other criteria in the charter...
I am not very comfortable with prescribing limits to what people can discuss, but I'm even less comfortable with any policy that may result from an over-broad mandate. From my POV, the ideal charter would be one that states "the wg can discuss and make recommendations on, anything it feels like; but has no mandate to make policy resulting from those discussions or recommendations. In short, I'm trying to prevent a small cabal of "anti-abuse" people from instrumentalising RIPE or the NCC as some sort of enforcer of allowable content or copyrights, etc. rgds, Sascha Luck
On 5/29/2014 1:31 PM, Sascha Luck wrote:
I am not very comfortable with prescribing limits to what people can discuss, but I'm even less comfortable with any policy that may result from an over-broad mandate.
A charter is a contract. It should say what will be done and what won't be done. For group discussion contracts like this, also saying what is relevant or not is an extremely helpful management tool. If the group needs to talk about something that is out of scope, relative to the charter, it's unlikely that anyone will go to jail due to the violation. On the other hand, being explicit that the discussion is needed and getting group agreement, is merely good process hygiene. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Sascha, Sascha Luck wrote the following on 29/05/2014 21:31:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 07:11:44AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/27/2014 6:47 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
"While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may well be areas of interest."
Hmmm... oddly, that could turn out to be the more useful wording.
It is descriptive and does not really try to be prescriptive (or proscriptive), though of course it walks right up to that point.
As such, it paints a a bit of territory that might be 'related', but does neither requires nor prohibits traveling in the territory. I would therefore expect wg management to determine salience according to other criteria in the charter...
I am not very comfortable with prescribing limits to what people can discuss, but I'm even less comfortable with any policy that may result from an over-broad mandate. From my POV, the ideal charter would be one that states "the wg can discuss and make recommendations on, anything it feels like; but has no mandate to make policy resulting from those discussions or recommendations.
Why would you want to remove the ability to make policy from a WG? It's a fundamental piece of work that they do, even if it's never used.
In short, I'm trying to prevent a small cabal of "anti-abuse" people from instrumentalising RIPE or the NCC as some sort of enforcer of allowable content or copyrights, etc.
Just because something is in the charter doesn't mean people will make policy about it. Equally, just because it isn't in the charter, that doesn't stop someone in the community coming up with some policy. I will, of course, agree it makes conversation easier. I could even remove the word 'well' from the paragraph above to soften it. Policy is never made in isolation. We shout it loud and wide when a policy is submitted and people react to things they don't like. Some things do change over time (I was amazed when we eventually reached consensus on abuse-c), but it should not follow from that that all things will. All of that said, so far we've had a couple of pieces of text proposed. There have been (a small number of) voices on either side of the discussion around copyright etc. Are there any other opinions on this? Brian
Brian Is there a proposed updated text incorporating the feedback so far? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Michele, There is, or there is, bar really the paragraph we're still discussing. I'd like to thank both Sascha and Dave for their text so far: As the Internet has evolved, so has the scope and scale of network abuse. Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is often merely a symptom of deeper abuse such as viruses or botnets. Consequently the Anti-Spam Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse. The technical details of spam and other abuse constantly vary, in terms of application channel and technique. Channel examples include SMTP, SIP, XMPP and HTTP. Examples of techniques range from buffer overrun to social engineering. Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and non-technical, that are used to create, control, and make money from, such abuse. While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest. The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects of abuse, with the following goals: Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409 but covering a wider range of possible abusive behaviours. Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within the RIPE region such as ISPs, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies on strategic and operational matters. Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical methods of preventing or reducing network abuse. ***************** The core of the discussion at this point is over: "While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest." Brian Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 12:07:
Brian
Is there a proposed updated text incorporating the feedback so far?
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Thanks Brian I was trying to understand what the bit of text that was potentially causing problems was .. I'd drop "cybersquatting" as it's a term that most people don't really understand and is often misused. If you want to talk about copyright matters in a broader sense then the terminology should be different, "cybersquatting" refers to domain names only and is not within RIPE's remit. Hosting illegal content in my opinion should definitely be in scope. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: Brian Nisbet [mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:00 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter Michele, There is, or there is, bar really the paragraph we're still discussing. I'd like to thank both Sascha and Dave for their text so far: As the Internet has evolved, so has the scope and scale of network abuse. Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is often merely a symptom of deeper abuse such as viruses or botnets. Consequently the Anti-Spam Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse. The technical details of spam and other abuse constantly vary, in terms of application channel and technique. Channel examples include SMTP, SIP, XMPP and HTTP. Examples of techniques range from buffer overrun to social engineering. Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and non-technical, that are used to create, control, and make money from, such abuse. While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest. The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects of abuse, with the following goals: Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409 but covering a wider range of possible abusive behaviours. Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within the RIPE region such as ISPs, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies on strategic and operational matters. Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical methods of preventing or reducing network abuse. ***************** The core of the discussion at this point is over: "While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest." Brian Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 12:07:
Brian
Is there a proposed updated text incorporating the feedback so far?
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Hey, The aim is to reflect things like your talk from 66 and Peter Forsman's piece on counterfeit websites from 65. So, copyright, hosting illegal content (not trying to make content illegal, but reflecting, where appropriate, national and international laws) etc. It's tricky to say that names aren't in the remit of the RIPE community, I know what you mean, but there is still significant crossover and interest, so while I don't believe we should be making policy about them (let's leave aside how difficult it would be fore the community to do so), we may want to talk about them. Brian Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 14:04:
Thanks Brian
I was trying to understand what the bit of text that was potentially causing problems was ..
I'd drop "cybersquatting" as it's a term that most people don't really understand and is often misused. If you want to talk about copyright matters in a broader sense then the terminology should be different, "cybersquatting" refers to domain names only and is not within RIPE's remit.
Hosting illegal content in my opinion should definitely be in scope.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Nisbet [mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:00 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
Michele,
There is, or there is, bar really the paragraph we're still discussing.
I'd like to thank both Sascha and Dave for their text so far:
As the Internet has evolved, so has the scope and scale of network abuse. Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is often merely a symptom of deeper abuse such as viruses or botnets. Consequently the Anti-Spam Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse.
The technical details of spam and other abuse constantly vary, in terms of application channel and technique. Channel examples include SMTP, SIP, XMPP and HTTP. Examples of techniques range from buffer overrun to social engineering.
Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and non-technical, that are used to create, control, and make money from, such abuse.
While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest.
The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects of abuse, with the following goals:
Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409 but covering a wider range of possible abusive behaviours.
Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within the RIPE region such as ISPs, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies on strategic and operational matters.
Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical methods of preventing or reducing network abuse.
*****************
The core of the discussion at this point is over:
"While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest."
Brian
Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 12:07:
Brian
Is there a proposed updated text incorporating the feedback so far?
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Brian Then be explicit "Cybersquatting" is a pure names It's nothing to do with the actual content if you want to talk about copyright infringement etc., then that's fine Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: Brian Nisbet [mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:46 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter Hey, The aim is to reflect things like your talk from 66 and Peter Forsman's piece on counterfeit websites from 65. So, copyright, hosting illegal content (not trying to make content illegal, but reflecting, where appropriate, national and international laws) etc. It's tricky to say that names aren't in the remit of the RIPE community, I know what you mean, but there is still significant crossover and interest, so while I don't believe we should be making policy about them (let's leave aside how difficult it would be fore the community to do so), we may want to talk about them. Brian Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 14:04:
Thanks Brian
I was trying to understand what the bit of text that was potentially causing problems was ..
I'd drop "cybersquatting" as it's a term that most people don't really understand and is often misused. If you want to talk about copyright matters in a broader sense then the terminology should be different, "cybersquatting" refers to domain names only and is not within RIPE's remit.
Hosting illegal content in my opinion should definitely be in scope.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Nisbet [mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:00 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
Michele,
There is, or there is, bar really the paragraph we're still discussing.
I'd like to thank both Sascha and Dave for their text so far:
As the Internet has evolved, so has the scope and scale of network abuse. Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is often merely a symptom of deeper abuse such as viruses or botnets. Consequently the Anti-Spam Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse.
The technical details of spam and other abuse constantly vary, in terms of application channel and technique. Channel examples include SMTP, SIP, XMPP and HTTP. Examples of techniques range from buffer overrun to social engineering.
Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and non-technical, that are used to create, control, and make money from, such abuse.
While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest.
The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects of abuse, with the following goals:
Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409 but covering a wider range of possible abusive behaviours.
Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within the RIPE region such as ISPs, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies on strategic and operational matters.
Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical methods of preventing or reducing network abuse.
*****************
The core of the discussion at this point is over:
"While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest."
Brian
Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 12:07:
Brian
Is there a proposed updated text incorporating the feedback so far?
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Michele, As mentioned, we don't make policy for names, but a lot of people in the community care about them, however, would something like "While areas such as hosting illegal content or copyright infringement" be better? Or shall we just leave it as "While areas such as hosting illegal content..." Brian Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 15:19:
Brian
Then be explicit
"Cybersquatting" is a pure names
It's nothing to do with the actual content
if you want to talk about copyright infringement etc., then that's fine
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Nisbet [mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:46 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
Hey,
The aim is to reflect things like your talk from 66 and Peter Forsman's piece on counterfeit websites from 65. So, copyright, hosting illegal content (not trying to make content illegal, but reflecting, where appropriate, national and international laws) etc. It's tricky to say that names aren't in the remit of the RIPE community, I know what you mean, but there is still significant crossover and interest, so while I don't believe we should be making policy about them (let's leave aside how difficult it would be fore the community to do so), we may want to talk about them.
Brian Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 14:04:
Thanks Brian
I was trying to understand what the bit of text that was potentially causing problems was ..
I'd drop "cybersquatting" as it's a term that most people don't really understand and is often misused. If you want to talk about copyright matters in a broader sense then the terminology should be different, "cybersquatting" refers to domain names only and is not within RIPE's remit.
Hosting illegal content in my opinion should definitely be in scope.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Nisbet [mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:00 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
Michele,
There is, or there is, bar really the paragraph we're still discussing.
I'd like to thank both Sascha and Dave for their text so far:
As the Internet has evolved, so has the scope and scale of network abuse. Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is often merely a symptom of deeper abuse such as viruses or botnets. Consequently the Anti-Spam Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse.
The technical details of spam and other abuse constantly vary, in terms of application channel and technique. Channel examples include SMTP, SIP, XMPP and HTTP. Examples of techniques range from buffer overrun to social engineering.
Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and non-technical, that are used to create, control, and make money from, such abuse.
While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest.
The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects of abuse, with the following goals:
Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409 but covering a wider range of possible abusive behaviours.
Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within the RIPE region such as ISPs, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies on strategic and operational matters.
Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical methods of preventing or reducing network abuse.
*****************
The core of the discussion at this point is over:
"While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest."
Brian
Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 12:07:
Brian
Is there a proposed updated text incorporating the feedback so far?
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Yeah that'd work for me :) Just as long as I don't see the term "cybersquatting" I'm happier -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: Brian Nisbet [mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 3:23 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter Michele, As mentioned, we don't make policy for names, but a lot of people in the community care about them, however, would something like "While areas such as hosting illegal content or copyright infringement" be better? Or shall we just leave it as "While areas such as hosting illegal content..." Brian Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 15:19:
Brian
Then be explicit
"Cybersquatting" is a pure names
It's nothing to do with the actual content
if you want to talk about copyright infringement etc., then that's fine
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Nisbet [mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:46 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
Hey,
The aim is to reflect things like your talk from 66 and Peter Forsman's piece on counterfeit websites from 65. So, copyright, hosting illegal content (not trying to make content illegal, but reflecting, where appropriate, national and international laws) etc. It's tricky to say that names aren't in the remit of the RIPE community, I know what you mean, but there is still significant crossover and interest, so while I don't believe we should be making policy about them (let's leave aside how difficult it would be fore the community to do so), we may want to talk about them.
Brian Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 14:04:
Thanks Brian
I was trying to understand what the bit of text that was potentially causing problems was ..
I'd drop "cybersquatting" as it's a term that most people don't really understand and is often misused. If you want to talk about copyright matters in a broader sense then the terminology should be different, "cybersquatting" refers to domain names only and is not within RIPE's remit.
Hosting illegal content in my opinion should definitely be in scope.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Nisbet [mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:00 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
Michele,
There is, or there is, bar really the paragraph we're still discussing.
I'd like to thank both Sascha and Dave for their text so far:
As the Internet has evolved, so has the scope and scale of network abuse. Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is often merely a symptom of deeper abuse such as viruses or botnets. Consequently the Anti-Spam Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse.
The technical details of spam and other abuse constantly vary, in terms of application channel and technique. Channel examples include SMTP, SIP, XMPP and HTTP. Examples of techniques range from buffer overrun to social engineering.
Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and non-technical, that are used to create, control, and make money from, such abuse.
While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest.
The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects of abuse, with the following goals:
Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409 but covering a wider range of possible abusive behaviours.
Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within the RIPE region such as ISPs, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies on strategic and operational matters.
Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical methods of preventing or reducing network abuse.
*****************
The core of the discussion at this point is over:
"While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, may be areas of interest."
Brian
Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote the following on 30/05/2014 12:07:
Brian
Is there a proposed updated text incorporating the feedback so far?
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
participants (8)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Dave Crocker -
Dave Crocker -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Peter Koch -
Sascha Luck -
Sascha Luck -
Suresh Ramasubramanian