[anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter

Sascha Luck wrote the following on 09/05/2014 16:57:
> Brian,
>
> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 04:19:26PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> Well, it's essentially the same sentence that nobody has had a problem
>> with, so I feel the meaning has been clear. To create abuse, to
>> control abuse and to make money from abuse.
>
> textbook case for the oxford comma then: "to create, control, and make
> money from, abuse" :) I seriously was confused about the meaning of the
> sentence.

Again, this has been in place for ~3 years, so while I'm open to 
changing it, it doesn't appear to have tripped anyone up yet. :)

>> "While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not
>> seen as a central part of the working group's remit, nor does the WG
>> presume to pass judgement on such activity, aspects of these subjects
>> may overlap with forms of network abuse and so may, from time to time,
>> form part of the WG's activities & discussions."
>
> What do you think about this:
>
> "Areas, such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not part
> of the remit of the WG. Insofar as they overlap with other forms of
> network abuse, they may, from time to time, become part of the WG's
> activities and discussions."

I think that's a little softer than I'd like, but obviously I'm not the 
only opinion here, let's see what others think?

>>> Without a clear definition, arrived at by way of consensus, of what
>>> "network abuse" is, I would strenuously object to such an expansion of
>>> the scope of this WG.
>
>> And we're never going to get this. My intention here is to recognise
>> some of the discussion and work done within the WG has already touched
>> on these items. Also, new members of the community often wish to speak
>> to the WG or WG Chairs about them. It is not an attempt (as always) to
>> be any sort of network police, nor to pass judgement on such
>> activities in different jurisdictions.
>
> I'm not sure that sentiment is shared universally... There may be
> attempts again, to create policy to sanction abuse and if the definition
> should derive from the Charter, this could be pretty ugly. A bridge to
> be burned when we get there though, I guess.

There may be, but it's up to the WG and community to discuss those. The 
Charter doesn't mean that something has to happen. As you say, a bridge 
to burn.

> PS: I might be talking to you alone here, for some reason, while I get
> the list mails, my replies don't show.

Looks like they're all going to the list to me, so I think you're good. 
Procmail does funny things with lists sometimes.

Brian