On 1 Feb 2013, at 10:51, "Nash, Steve" <snash@arbor.net> wrote:
- Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the remit of any one RIPE WG. - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content. - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow.
It's almost impossible to come up with a consensus definition of terrorism for just one country, let alone across the RIPE service region. Consensus on a region-wide definition of illegal content seems unlikely too. So I suggest we don't go down those rat-holes. Instead we should engage with law enforcement and governments to reach a common understanding on what practical steps can be taken or are being taken, discuss the legal/technical issues, develop processes for exchanging information, doing liaison and outreach, etc. IIUC this is already happening.
Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG?
No. IMO the current arrangements seem to be fine. IIUC NCC staff and representatives of relevant WGs are already involved in this project and engage more generally with governments and law enforcement on things like crime prevention and counterterrorism. If the existing arrangements are not working, we first need to find out why before deciding how to fix the problem(s). Creating a new WG or a Task Force (say) seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Even more so when it's not clear what's broken or needs to be fixed. Do you have any insight that the community's current activities in this area are unsatisfactory? Can you explain how a new WG or whatever would improve matters?
I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way, otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily engaged in future dialogue.
RIPE and the NCC are already engaged AFAICT.