[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse

“Define abuse”
Are you kidding? In this WG?

“Complicated”
Only for those who feed with the practice of abuse.

“meaningless political  expression” 
Are you with nefarious intent? (using Andre words)

“it should be defined by RIPE” 
This just keeps getting better than stand-up comic.

Until...
Marilson

From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net 
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 5:37 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net 
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 58, Issue 21

Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.ripe.net/
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Definition of Abuse (Gert Doering)
   2. Re: Definition of Abuse (Gert Doering)
   3. Re: Definition of Abuse (Sascha Luck [ml])
   4. Re: Definition of Abuse (andre at ox.co.za)
   5. Re: Definition of Abuse (andre at ox.co.za)
   6. Unsubscribe (Eoin C. Bair?ad)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:15:19 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
To: andre at ox.co.za
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
Message-ID: <20160814191519.GM79185 at Space.Net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 07:55:01AM +0200, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> Definition of Abuse as it should be defined by RIPE
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource

I like this.

I'm not sure if there are "false positives", but the general idea feels
good, and thinking about it a bit, it seems to match what I consider 
"abuse" and does not match "non-abuse" - of course, this is now tied to
what someone would consider as "infringe upon usage rights".

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160814/de49bb91/attachment-0001.sig>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:26:14 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
To: andre at ox.co.za
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
Message-ID: <20160814192614.GN79185 at Space.Net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 09:15:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
> 
> I like this.
> 
> I'm not sure if there are "false positives", but the general idea feels
> good, and thinking about it a bit, it seems to match what I consider 
> "abuse" and does not match "non-abuse" - of course, this is now tied to
> what someone would consider as "infringe upon usage rights".

Thinking about this some more, this doesn't work "as is", because there
are legal reason why someone could infringe on someon else's use rights
- 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
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160814/243abafe/attachment-0001.sig>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:08:14 +0100
From: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net>
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
Message-ID: <20160814200814.GQ862 at cilantro.c4inet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 09:15:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>> The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of
>> another resource
>
>I like this.

I...don't.

It is a meaningless political  expression that can mean anything
to anyone.  Nothing anyone does will not make someone else feel
their "rights" are being "infringed upon".

rgds,
Sascha Luck




------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:04:24 +0200
From: andre at ox.co.za
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
Message-ID: <mailman.1365.1471250259.19326.anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

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





------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:16:17 +0200
From: andre at ox.co.za
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
Message-ID: <mailman.1366.1471250259.19326.anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII



All,

My response was to off list 'comments" and I apologize to the list.
I clicked send, too soon, so I retract my previous post and offer only
the following:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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



On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:04:24 +0200
andre at ox.co.za wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 




------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:22:45 +0000
From: Eoin C. Bair?ad <EBairead at mazars.ie>
To: "'anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net'" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Unsubscribe
Message-ID:
<825E4D78EE6C0F4EA56FE864501E3E93CAD9500A at mazars15.mazars.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Unsubscribe me please

Eoin C. Bair?ad
IT
Mazars
Block 3 The Harcourt Centre
Charlotte Street
Dublin 2
phone: +353 (1) 4494490
fax: +353 (1) 4750089
mobile: +353 (87) 2311357


#####################################################################################
Internet communications are not secure and the firm does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the firm.

This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information.  You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. 
#####################################################################################

#####################################################################################
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared 
by NetIQ MailMarshal
#####################################################################################
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160815/f31e1a47/attachment.html>

End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 58, Issue 21
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160815/f3f29366/attachment.html>