[anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes - RIPE 61

On 2/1/2011 8:16 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Dave CROCKER<dcrocker at bbiw.net>  wrote:
>> But note that Richard's note contained none of these particulars.
>
> I read it in the context of earlier articles he posted here and
> elsewhere such as on the spamhaus website.

If that larger context were part of the current, public exchange, that would 
make sense.  But I haven't seen it and Richard did not provide it.


> And also in the context of http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=RIPE

That citation is an example of the problem, IMO.  An audit like that list can be 
useful for particular discussion, but as a standalone citation as it has been 
getting used, it's merely inflammatory.

All it does is say that there is a problem and it creates an association of that 
problem with RIPE, implying that the responsibility is RIPE's.  Whether that 
implication is valid is a core, controversial point.  (The cliche, here, is that 
correlation is not the same as causation.)

Example:  Make a list of the communication services used by drug cartels. 
Publish it.  Clearly that means we need to have communication services enforce 
rules against drug cartels.  For extra credit, explain how the rules will only 
be used legally against drug cartels and not also bleed over to other, 
legitimate groups, such as an active group of old ladies who regularly plan 
getting together to play Mah Jong.

Discussions concerning registration institutions tend to treat this topic 
simplistically.  Richard's note did not even go into enough detail to be guilty 
of this.  Worse, it didn't even cite the larger context of discussion and 
issues.  It merely made a public, flat condemnation.  I don't see how that's 
productive.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net