[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:48:34 -0700
"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> P.S.  If specifically asked however, I would critique your current
> working definition as follows:
> 
>      "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
> rights of another resource"
> 
Thank you for your contribution.

Removing the personal insults and other non relevant content, your objections seems to be:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making a fraudulent representation to RIPE in order to obtain 
resource(s) - is/are abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and then, that five other definitions may be required for those
people that are not as technical.

I propose that we finalise the definition of abuse itself and then move
on to define the words as it will be counter productive to work up &
down - and, patently and clearly their is an urgent and desperate need
for us to produce a definition of abuse.

===================
Definition of abuse:
===================

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

My position is as follows regarding fake WHOIS information:

It is clearly fraud to submit fake information in order to obtain a resource

Fraud is clearly a criminal act

Either way, using a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of
another resource, which was obtained by fake information, would fit into
the above definition as the use of that resource would not be sanctioned.

It is important to mention though, that the resource would have had to
be used though, for there to have been abuse in the first place.

I think in the further definitions this could be fleshed out for the
non technical or not as technical people

Andre





> This does not cover AT ALL cases where fradulent data has been
> deliberately entered into the WHOIS data base.  You attempt to ignore
> this entire problem area... to just sweep the whole thing under the

> rug as if it doesn't exist... kinda makes me wonder if you are just
> shilling for Sasha Luck, who doesn't want to see there be a WHOIS

> data base AT ALL because, you know, god forbid that anybody or any
> company should ever actually be held, you know, accountable.  No no
> no!  We can't have THAT now can we?
> 
> So?  Are you shilling for the "pro-privacy" and "anti-transparency"
> lobby, or what?  It's not like you could have missed the fact that
> bogus WHOIS data has been a topic here recently.
> 
> Further critique:
> 
>     Your "definition" will require five additional definitions of its
> own before it will even mean a blasted thing, actually, to anybody:
> 
>     Define "sanctioned".  (Sanction by whom? Sanctioned by what?  The
> law?)
> 
>     Define "use".  (If I send a packet to you, did I just "use" you?)
> 
>     Define "resource".  (Do resources include WHOIS records?  If not,
> why not?)
> 
>     Define "infringe". (If I make a copy of your webpage, have I
> infringed?)
> 
>     Define "rights".  (Which rights, in particular?  Who or what
> grants these "rights" you speak of?  God?  IANA?  RIPE?  My local
> 			city council?)
> 
>     Until you define those additional five things, your definition
> doesn't even MEAN anything.  Not in any real, meaningful, or concrete
> sense at least.
> 
>     That's why I didn't even think the whole thing was even worth
> commenting on, quite frankly, i.e. because it seems so tenuous and
> incomplete.  So I just got out a fresh blank sheet of paper and
> started writing my own version, which I posted, explained, and
> provided necessary definitions for, so that readers would have a
> prayer in hell of being able to at least understand what it means.
>