[anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Thu May 29 22:31:52 CEST 2014
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
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]