[anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73

On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:19:07 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> I asked about AUP clauses
> 
We were not talking about AUP clauses. You were using that in an
attempt to highlight your point.

> You’re asking me back questions about SMTP and bounce handling
> 
Doing what you are doing. And pointing out that the AUP's you are
referring to are written by, at the least, non ethical people and at
the most, dishonest people.

> That is not an answer to my question, and nor does it follow the
> socratic method of trying to answer a question by asking more
> questions, because your line of reasoning is entirely irrelevant to
> the matter being discussed.
> 
and round and round it goes.

You cannot have cake and give cake away. So, either make your point on
a solid foundation, or accept that your point is without foundation.


> 
> On 04/10/16, 9:16 PM, "ox" <andre at ox.co.za> wrote:
> 
>     On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:03:04 +0530
>     Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>     > Do yourself a favour.  Go review the acceptable use policies of
>     > various large ISPs and email providers.  Then come back with a
>     > better informed reply.
>     > It is pointless to continue this discussion, without your being
>     > better informed.
>     
>     not sure how to respond to that, as it is fairly personally
> directed, but I will try... 
>     Just because various large ISPs and email providers says
> something it does not mean that it has to be accepted by society. Or
> even that anything and/or  everything they say in common is correct,
> accurate or fair in an open,ethical and just society.
>     
>     a singular and simple example would be Google.com
>     
>     When their servers behave abusively they bounce emails to their
> clients saying that the sender has an error.
>     
>     ethical? - no.
>     fair? - no
>     no evil? - no.
>     decent? - no.
>     nice? - no.
>     
>     do I have to believe and trust the largest email provider on the
> planet earth, Google? - no.
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     > 
>     > On 04/10/16, 8:56 PM, "ox" <andre at ox.co.za> wrote:
>     > 
>     >     
>     >     Just to point out, from your tediously long but eloquent
>     > reply, for clarity: 
>     >     You claim that trying to define Internet Abuse is asinine
>     > behavior. 
>     >     To that I respond: I do not agree with you.
>     >     
>     >     I do not think that trying to define Internet Abuse is
>     > behaving like an Ass. 
>     >     I do think that not defining Internet Abuse, if we are
>     > talking about Internet Abuse, and even if RIPE or an ISP or a
>     > Government is talking about Internet Abuse, is simply stupid.
>     >     
>     >     Regarding where we were at about the singular definition of
>     > Internet abuse, as it stood: it still stands. - You could reply
>     > to that still open thread?
>     >     
>     >     The rest of your diatribe: 
>     >     regarding Hetzner.de - The whole DMCA came about as a
>     > result of "Internet Abuse" - so abuse at hetzner.de has to enforce
>     > the German eq of DCMA - as Governments themselves are confused
>     > about what this "Internet Abuse" thing actually is.
>     >     
>     >     And, copyright etc is only one such example. There are many
>     > examples where other actions/crimes/etc are confused with
>     > "Internet Abuse" in fact, it has become so convenient that
>     > everything may simply be called "Internet Abuse" as it makes it
>     > so easy - it makes abuse at anywhere have to handle everything...
>     >     
>     >     Regarding status quo: but that does not have to be the
>     > case. 
>     >     Anyone that cares can agitate, push back and keep on
>     > pushing, pulling (even adding the odd bovanity (in reference to
>     > the abuse of bovines in general)
>     >     
>     >     anyway, I get your response(s) as well. 
>     >     
>     >     and, for the record, Internet Abuse does not only/simply
>     > apply/relate to carrier grade internet abuse mitigation. - so
>     > yet another example of perspective and point of view...
>     >     
>     >     
>     >     On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 20:33:20 +0530
>     >     Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>     >     > On 04/10/16, 7:19 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox"
>     >     > <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of
>     >     > andre at ox.co.za> wrote:
>     >     > 
>     >     > > 1. many people on this list has no idea what constitutes
>     >     > > Internet abuse
>     >     >  
>     >     > That is painfully clear to me.
>     >     > 
>     >     > Your Hetzner example was about DMCA (or whatever the
>     >     > German equivalent is) enforcement which is not normally
>     >     > classified as internet abuse handling, that is a separate
>     >     > legal process that each ISP handles per the advice of
>     >     > their legal team.
>     >     > 
>     >     > It is peripheral to various abuse teams’ work so that set
>     >     > best practice is evolving in that direction, but that is
>     >     > entirely moot in this context.
>     >     > 
>     >     > The RIPE region has several pockets of badness that are
>     >     > related to issues other than copyright infringement, on
>     >     > which there is broad consensus in ISP acceptable use
>     >     > policy and national law.
>     >     > 
>     >     > Your periodically trying to steer the discussion away into
>     >     > banalities about the minutiae of a catchall definition of
>     >     > internet abuse, let alone agricultural metaphors, is, to
>     >     > use another such metaphor, asinine.
>     >     > 
>     >     > I don’t expect any significant or useful action from this
>     >     > group – not since most every “internet name” in the RIPE
>     >     > region just happened to be in the room during an AOB
>     >     > session to remove Richard Cox from his role.
>     >     > 
>     >     > There just isn’t any will to disturb a comfortable status
>     >     > quo, and a lot of fautuous arguments against it from
>     >     > several people with zero background in carrier grade
>     >     > internet abuse mitigation (rather than databases, whois,
>     >     > routing and such), and I get that.
>     >     > 
>     >     > --srs
>     >     > 
>     >     > 
>     >     
>     >     
>     > 
>     > 
>     
>     
> 
>