[anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter

On 5/27/2014 2:07 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>>      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.


I quite like the tone of the language.  It's almost lyrical and literary.

However as for utility in a working group charter, I don't know what the
second sentence means.

A more general form of that sentence highlights the problem with the
construction and it's vagueness:

     Insofar as something that is outside the wg scope 'overlaps' with
something inside the wg scope, it's ok for the wg to discuss it.

My guess is that it's the something inside the scope that is what will
really be talked about, where the other stuff might be 'mentioned' but
isn't really what will (or should) be talked about.

And what does it mean to "overlap", in technical or operations terms?

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net