[anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66

Ronald,
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 05/03/2013 20:36:
> In message <5135CE73.9030500 at heanet.ie>,
> Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:
>
>> This is the draft agenda for the RIPE 66 meeting...
>
> No agenda item about defining (or refining the definition of) "abuse"?

Nope.

> I'd like to just reiterate my view that all other activities of this WG
> will be utterly fruitless until such time as a reasonable, rational, and
> generally accepted definition of "abuse" is in hand.

I genuinely don't think it will be useful to spend time on this. I think 
an attempt to get a consensual definition of abuse would take the whole 
of the session in Dublin and every session thereafter and after all that 
time, I still don't think we would have got anywhere. If the rest of the 
WG disagrees with me, then we can raise it, but if n = the number of 
people in the WG, I fear we would have n + 1 definitions.

> P.S.  I am still not sure if any other things that drew me to this mailing
> list, or to this WG, or that I have reported here, over time, are or are
> not considered abuse.  (And by that I mean "formally" considered.)

I certainly believe they are, everyone else seems largely to agree, so 
we're good. See above regarding my opinions on formal definitions.

Brian