[anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Wed Mar 6 11:48:26 CET 2013
Ronald, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 05/03/2013 20:36: > In message <5135CE73.9030500 at heanet.ie>, > Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote: > >> This is the draft agenda for the RIPE 66 meeting... > > No agenda item about defining (or refining the definition of) "abuse"? Nope. > I'd like to just reiterate my view that all other activities of this WG > will be utterly fruitless until such time as a reasonable, rational, and > generally accepted definition of "abuse" is in hand. I genuinely don't think it will be useful to spend time on this. I think an attempt to get a consensual definition of abuse would take the whole of the session in Dublin and every session thereafter and after all that time, I still don't think we would have got anywhere. If the rest of the WG disagrees with me, then we can raise it, but if n = the number of people in the WG, I fear we would have n + 1 definitions. > P.S. I am still not sure if any other things that drew me to this mailing > list, or to this WG, or that I have reported here, over time, are or are > not considered abuse. (And by that I mean "formally" considered.) I certainly believe they are, everyone else seems largely to agree, so we're good. See above regarding my opinions on formal definitions. Brian
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]