[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse

On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:26:14 +0200
Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
<snip snip>
> - in cases specifically permitted by law.
> (Like, you're not permitted to use "force" to infringe on someone
> else's "freedom to move" - but there are reasons permitted by law
> when this is totally appropriate and not considered "abuse")
> 
> Complicated.
> Gert Doering

Good point! - As Sascha Luck also contributed "Nothing anyone does
will not make someone else feel their "rights" are being "infringed
upon"

We do have to define abuse - Not only is it silly not to do that, it is
patently an obstruction of the working of this very group.

The only people who will try to sabotage, undermine or not to
constructively contribute to the creation of an abuse definition - are
those with nefarious intent.

There simply is no other socially, ethically and openly acceptable
reason to obstruct the process of defining what constitutes abuse.

So, if we adapt the definition then:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of Abuse as it should be defined by RIPE
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
of another resource


Reasoning
-------------------------
"Sanctioned" - can have its own definition, so can "resource" as well as
"usage rights". 

The above covers all abuse scenarios and it does not tell anyone what
to do or what not to do. It is fair and reasonable and includes everything

I feel it is important to make the definition as simple and as general
as possible, to find a balance between freedom and responsibility.

Andre