<HTML><HEAD></HEAD> <BODY dir=ltr> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"> <DIV>“Define abuse”</DIV> <DIV>Are you kidding? In this WG?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>“Complicated”</DIV> <DIV>Only for those who feed with the practice of abuse.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>“meaningless political expression” </DIV> <DIV>Are you with nefarious intent? (using Andre words)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>“it should be defined by RIPE” </DIV> <DIV>This just keeps getting better than stand-up comic.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Until...</DIV> <DIV>Marilson</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'></DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma"> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5"> <DIV style="font-color: black">From: <A title=anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net</A> </DIV> <DIV>Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 5:37 AM</DIV> <DIV>To: <A title=anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</A> </DIV> <DIV>Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 58, Issue 21</DIV></DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner@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@ox.co.za) 5. Re: Definition of Abuse (andre@ox.co.za) 6. Unsubscribe (Eoin C. Bair?ad) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:15:19 +0200 From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> To: andre@ox.co.za Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse Message-ID: <20160814191519.GM79185@Space.Net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi, On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 07:55:01AM +0200, andre@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: <https://lists.ripe.net/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@space.net> To: andre@ox.co.za Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse Message-ID: <20160814192614.GN79185@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: <https://lists.ripe.net/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@c4inet.net> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse Message-ID: <20160814200814.GQ862@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@ox.co.za To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse Message-ID: <mailman.1365.1471250259.19326.anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:26:14 +0200 Gert Doering <gert@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@ox.co.za To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse Message-ID: <mailman.1366.1471250259.19326.anti-abuse-wg@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@ox.co.za wrote: > On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:26:14 +0200 > Gert Doering <gert@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@mazars.ie> To: "'anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net'" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Unsubscribe Message-ID: <825E4D78EE6C0F4EA56FE864501E3E93CAD9500A@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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160815/f31e1a47/attachment.html> End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 58, Issue 21 ********************************************* </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>