[address-policy-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE NCC Executive Board election

In message <DB7PR06MB5017A8B5895186225DA850AF94D80 at DB7PR06MB5017.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>, 
Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:

>While obviously I can only make comments for AA-WG (I note there are many
>WGs in x-post) I need to point out that this is not a suitable email for
>this working group.

Others may disagree.  I most certainly do.

The Anti-Abuse Working Group has been repeatedly given ample opportunities 
to provide a formal definition for the term "abuse" with respect to the
Internet, and Internet resources.  It has declined all of these opportunities.

It logically and inescapably follows from that fact that as far as the
entire RIPE community goes, "abuse" remains in the eye of the beholder.

I know more than a few people, both on this list and elsewhere, who,
like me, are of the opinion that active participation in the fradulent
theft of IP address blocks, regadless of which portion of the world's
Internet they are stolen from, consititutes "abuse" of a kind that quite
properly is and should be a concern of this working group.

Also and likewise, I know more than a few people, both in this Working
Group, and elsewhere, who, like me, are of the opinion that the act of
attempting to fradulently extort IP address assets from the rightful
owner of said assets, e.g. the City of Cape Town, South Africa, is
"abuse" of a type that is and rightly should be of concern to this
Working Group, and further, that these acts are also a repugnant abuse
against simple honesty, decency, and humanity generally, and ones that
cannot be either excused or dismissed, let alone rewarded with a RIPE NCC
executive board seat.

You, Brian, along with every other member of this Working Group had
your opportunity to codify a definition of "abuse" that would explicitly
exclude theft, fraud, and extortion, thuse rendering exactly such gross
misdeeds explicitly irrelevant to this Working Group.  You declined to do
so, as did others.  It follows that you cannot now say that such acts
have no relevance to the Anti-Abuse Working Group.  You are the Chainman
of the Working Group.  You are not the King... an entirely salient point
which our own Mr. Trump has of late needed to be reminded of also.

Theft, fraud, and extortion, especially as they relates to IP address
allocations, as in this case, may be something that you personally
prefer to turn a blind eye to, but your personal preferences in this
regard cannot and will not override the conscience of those who prefer to
see things as they are, based on abundant evidence, even if those members
of this WG who still place some value on simple decency and honesty are
in the minority.


Regards,
rfg