[anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter

Dave,

Thanks for this,

Dave Crocker wrote the following on 10/05/2014 18:20:
> On 5/10/2014 9:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> That is a hair that need not be split.
>>
>> The meaning and intent are perfectly clear.
>>
>> And the meaning of abuse is varied enough, and ever changing, that it
>> would not be wise to get bogged down in definitions.
>
>
> Perhaps small re-wordings, to capture the above, without (intending to)
> change the substance of the existing charter:
>
>
>
>     Draft revision of <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse>
>
>
> As the Internet has evolved, so has the scope and scale of network
> abuse.  Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is often merely a symptom of
> deeper abuse such as viruses or botnets.  Consequently the Anti-Spam
> Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse.
>
> The technical details of spam and other abuse constantly vary, in terms
> of application channel and technique.  Channel examples include SMTP,
> SIP, XMPP and HTTP.  Examples of techniques range from buffer overrun to
> social engineering.

Anti-Abuse Working Group, but other than this, it's great, thanks.

>      Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and
> non-technical, that are used to create, control and make money from such
> abuse.
>
>      Outside of scope are areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal
> content.

The problem I see here (but the WG might disagree) is that we do talk 
about the above and the WG has expressed interest in same, hence my wish 
to at least acknowledge this. Sasha's language here was:

"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."

which I quite like.

> The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects of
> abuse, with the following goals:
>
>      Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document
> for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409 but covering a wider range of
> possible abusive behaviours.
>
>      Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within
> the RIPE region such as ISPs, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies
> on strategic and operational matters.
>
>      Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical
> methods of preventing or reducing network abuse.

So I suppose my proposal here would be to run with Dave's text, except 
for the part about cybersquatting & illegal content, where I would drop 
in Sascha's. What do you all think?

Thanks,

Brian