[anti-abuse-wg] (no subject)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 14:52:26 +0100
Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:
> Folks,
> I think this particular spur of the conversation has hit a usefulness
> dead-end.
> Let's bring it back to something more concrete and less ad hominem
> please.
> Brian
> 

agreed, but there are valid abuse topics that we should actually talk
about. When these are read with the 2009 efforts and other past threads,
the ever shifting definition of abuse does beg discussion

All the threads and replies spawned by Ron's initial post has raised
serious and valid questions - and as Sascha has pointed out, the
difference between resource definitions, allocation and assignment, 
as well as the processes regarding each (and how these affect and effect
abuse, which has remained a constant, right?)

But: The very definition of abuse - has it changed? If yes,
what exactly constitutes abuse in 2016? - We may actually have to
redefine the definition of abuse?

Also, I am honestly not sure myself: Is all crime also abuse?
is all abuse also crime? Does society demand and hold org's like RIPE
to a higher standard? (Should they?) and does RIPE have a greater
responsibility than we all assumed?

before flaming me, please just think about that for a second. Realise
that it may actually have changed, our perception of things has changed
over the past ten years? - and, if I am wrong - help me out! :) 

If all crime is actually abuse - or if only certain crimes are abuse -
is there any due process requirements, or is it up to our own network
owners (or bosses) judgment(s) 

My current boss is very clear about what she considers abuse - Any
traffic that is bad for our network or clients ingress or egress
(and, by bad she also means that anything that we can become liable for
or be sued for, etc.)

But, abuse is now beyond that? It is also passive content - out there
in the RIPE ip space? 

Bleh, sorry if I am on a tangent - maybe I need a beer...(or two)

Andre