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

On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:42:59 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/10/16, 9:25 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox"
> <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of andre at ox.co.za> wrote:
> > 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.
> Ah, the legal departments of most every ISP and email provider then?
> In other words, colleagues of most everybody that attends a RIPE
> meeting, and official policy set by their employers?
> Interesting set of perceptions there – but not a terms of reference
> based on which I intend to carry on this discussion any further.
> 

to refresh your memory, this is what was said:

> 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.