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

On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 04:33:29 pm Emanuele Balla wrote:

> I wonder if this is really the "Anti-Abuse Working Group" or turned into
> the "Anti-Anti-Abuse Working Group" instead.
> 
> 
> IMHO, the question is not whether "Richard’s comments unfairly damaged
> the reputation [...] the Anti-Abuse Working Group" -to quote an extract
> from your minutes from Rome meeting- but if this working group still has
> a reason to exist in its current shape and still has any reputation at all.
> 
> 
> I observe that a lot of work is being done on several aspects of spam
> and network abuse mitigation, in a lot of places.
> 
> Only, it rarely happens here.
> 
> 
> We should all ask ourselves why, and -most important- how to change
> this. And possibly find the answers...

I really wish to thank the author of these comments. To be honest, I wanted to 
raise these concerns at the RIPE 61 Meeting, as I was a participant, but the 
issues with Richard made the timing inappropriate. 

I am a relative newcomer both to the RIPE community and the AAWG (RIPE 59 was 
my first meeting). I got interested in this WG as an operator of Internet 
Services, mainly mail services. During this time I found very little useful 
stuff in this group from a technical operator's point of view. I must say 
Tobias' proposals were the most useful actual work that I saw here and remains 
to be seen what will eventually happen with them.

Having said this, I think there is a lot of room for improvement and it is 
never late to produce useful work, collaborating also with other relevant 
Groups. But, in my opinion this Group has to either reform and reorganize 
itself or stop to exist with its current form. 

Regards,

Kostas Zorbadelos