[anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter

Dave Crocker wrote the following on 27/05/2014 12:50:
> 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?

It's a fair question, especially as me knowing what it means isn't the 
most useful thing, I wrote most of this charter and it's all in my head. :)

I'll also let Sascha respond as well, of course.

What I'm trying to capture is the delicate balance between not wanting 
to make the WG about copyright etc, but to be able to talk about the 
effects that these issues can have on networks and the novel 
methods/interesting procedures operators and others use to find them, 
remove them and reveal other badness around them. This is of interest to 
the community and to law enforcement, but it's difficult to class as 
network abuse.

This is the original language I used here:

"While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not 
seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are 
unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such, 
may well be areas of interest."

but there were comments about that, so trying to find a different form 
of text to thread that needle.

Brian