In message <DB7PR06MB5017A8B5895186225DA850AF94D80@DB7PR06MB5017.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
While obviously I can only make comments for AA-WG (I note there are many WGs in x-post) I need to point out that this is not a suitable email for this working group.
Others may disagree. I most certainly do. The Anti-Abuse Working Group has been repeatedly given ample opportunities to provide a formal definition for the term "abuse" with respect to the Internet, and Internet resources. It has declined all of these opportunities. It logically and inescapably follows from that fact that as far as the entire RIPE community goes, "abuse" remains in the eye of the beholder. I know more than a few people, both on this list and elsewhere, who, like me, are of the opinion that active participation in the fradulent theft of IP address blocks, regadless of which portion of the world's Internet they are stolen from, consititutes "abuse" of a kind that quite properly is and should be a concern of this working group. Also and likewise, I know more than a few people, both in this Working Group, and elsewhere, who, like me, are of the opinion that the act of attempting to fradulently extort IP address assets from the rightful owner of said assets, e.g. the City of Cape Town, South Africa, is "abuse" of a type that is and rightly should be of concern to this Working Group, and further, that these acts are also a repugnant abuse against simple honesty, decency, and humanity generally, and ones that cannot be either excused or dismissed, let alone rewarded with a RIPE NCC executive board seat. You, Brian, along with every other member of this Working Group had your opportunity to codify a definition of "abuse" that would explicitly exclude theft, fraud, and extortion, thuse rendering exactly such gross misdeeds explicitly irrelevant to this Working Group. You declined to do so, as did others. It follows that you cannot now say that such acts have no relevance to the Anti-Abuse Working Group. You are the Chainman of the Working Group. You are not the King... an entirely salient point which our own Mr. Trump has of late needed to be reminded of also. Theft, fraud, and extortion, especially as they relates to IP address allocations, as in this case, may be something that you personally prefer to turn a blind eye to, but your personal preferences in this regard cannot and will not override the conscience of those who prefer to see things as they are, based on abundant evidence, even if those members of this WG who still place some value on simple decency and honesty are in the minority. Regards, rfg