On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 14:52:26 +0100 Brian Nisbet <brian.nis...@heanet.ie> wrote: > Folks, > I think this particular spur of the conversation has hit a usefulness > dead-end. > Let's bring it back to something more concrete and less ad hominem > please. > Brian >
agreed, but there are valid abuse topics that we should actually talk about. When these are read with the 2009 efforts and other past threads, the ever shifting definition of abuse does beg discussion All the threads and replies spawned by Ron's initial post has raised serious and valid questions - and as Sascha has pointed out, the difference between resource definitions, allocation and assignment, as well as the processes regarding each (and how these affect and effect abuse, which has remained a constant, right?) But: The very definition of abuse - has it changed? If yes, what exactly constitutes abuse in 2016? - We may actually have to redefine the definition of abuse? Also, I am honestly not sure myself: Is all crime also abuse? is all abuse also crime? Does society demand and hold org's like RIPE to a higher standard? (Should they?) and does RIPE have a greater responsibility than we all assumed? before flaming me, please just think about that for a second. Realise that it may actually have changed, our perception of things has changed over the past ten years? - and, if I am wrong - help me out! :) If all crime is actually abuse - or if only certain crimes are abuse - is there any due process requirements, or is it up to our own network owners (or bosses) judgment(s) My current boss is very clear about what she considers abuse - Any traffic that is bad for our network or clients ingress or egress (and, by bad she also means that anything that we can become liable for or be sued for, etc.) But, abuse is now beyond that? It is also passive content - out there in the RIPE ip space? Bleh, sorry if I am on a tangent - maybe I need a beer...(or two) Andre
