[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse

I like the idea of “damage” or “harm” on others

The “infringe on usage .. “ thing didn’t seem very clear to me and I don’t see how that would apply to spam etc.,



--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://ceo.hosting/ 
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

On 15/08/2016, 15:29, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Dave Crocker" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:

    On 8/14/2016 1:08 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
    > 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".
    
    
    I think this comment goes to the heart of the challenge, here.  This 
    group is focused on an operational topic.  Its definitions should focus 
    on operational issues.  Such a focus requires defining things in very 
    specific terms.
    
    In this context, I believe abuse concerns unauthorized access and to 
    actions that inflict damage on others.  This might need some 
    elaboration, if folks want to worry about such things as persistency 
    (duration or pattern) of the misbehavior, degree of damage, or the like.
    
    Also while 'intent' is an appealing reference with respect to abuse, I 
    suggest that it's best reserved for legal discussions, not operational ones.
    
    
    d/
    
    
    -- 
    
       Dave Crocker
       Brandenburg InternetWorking
       bbiw.net