[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse

ox <andre at ox.co.za> wrote:

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

Yes.

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

No.

Five other definitions are required for your general statement of
general principal to have any meaning *at all* to *anyone*.

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

This is swell, as a general statement of general principal, but in the
utter absence of definitions of the terms of reference, it is functionally
equivalent to the following statement of general principal:

     All God's childern should be happy.

That's an admirable sentiment, and one which most folks would be happy to
agree with, but absent a clear statement of who the writer means to
include in the term "God's children" and/or a specification of what
any of us are being asked or expected to do in order to achieve this
general outcome, it is a statement devoid of actual meaning, and is
thus just a political slogan.

>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.

Defined "use".

If I announce a route to an IP block, e.g. one that isn't actually assigned
to me, but then I never put anything in that block, have I "used" it?

Some what say "yes".  Others would say "no".

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

You've missed the point entirely.  The additional definitions are not
simply necessary to satisfy pointy-headed geeks.  The additional definitions
are necessary for your general statement of general principal to have
any actual meaning AT ALL to anybody.

Who are "God's children"?  Do you mean only the children of His Chosen
People?

It makes a difference.

You need to define terms.