On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 07:11:44AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/27/2014 6:47 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
"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."
Hmmm... oddly, that could turn out to be the more useful wording.
It is descriptive and does not really try to be prescriptive (or proscriptive), though of course it walks right up to that point.
As such, it paints a a bit of territory that might be 'related', but does neither requires nor prohibits traveling in the territory. I would therefore expect wg management to determine salience according to other criteria in the charter...
I am not very comfortable with prescribing limits to what people can discuss, but I'm even less comfortable with any policy that may result from an over-broad mandate. From my POV, the ideal charter would be one that states "the wg can discuss and make recommendations on, anything it feels like; but has no mandate to make policy resulting from those discussions or recommendations. In short, I'm trying to prevent a small cabal of "anti-abuse" people from instrumentalising RIPE or the NCC as some sort of enforcer of allowable content or copyrights, etc. rgds, Sascha Luck