Just to point out, from your tediously long but eloquent reply, for clarity:
You claim that trying to define Internet Abuse is asinine behavior. To that I respond: I do not agree with you. I do not think that trying to define Internet Abuse is behaving like an Ass. I do think that not defining Internet Abuse, if we are talking about Internet Abuse, and even if RIPE or an ISP or a Government is talking about Internet Abuse, is simply stupid. Regarding where we were at about the singular definition of Internet abuse, as it stood: it still stands. - You could reply to that still open thread? The rest of your diatribe: regarding Hetzner.de - The whole DMCA came about as a result of "Internet Abuse" - so ab...@hetzner.de has to enforce the German eq of DCMA - as Governments themselves are confused about what this "Internet Abuse" thing actually is. And, copyright etc is only one such example. There are many examples where other actions/crimes/etc are confused with "Internet Abuse" in fact, it has become so convenient that everything may simply be called "Internet Abuse" as it makes it so easy - it makes abuse@anywhere have to handle everything... Regarding status quo: but that does not have to be the case. Anyone that cares can agitate, push back and keep on pushing, pulling (even adding the odd bovanity (in reference to the abuse of bovines in general) anyway, I get your response(s) as well. and, for the record, Internet Abuse does not only/simply apply/relate to carrier grade internet abuse mitigation. - so yet another example of perspective and point of view... On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 20:33:20 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/10/16, 7:19 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" > <anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net on behalf of an...@ox.co.za> wrote: > > > 1. many people on this list has no idea what constitutes Internet > > abuse > > That is painfully clear to me. > > Your Hetzner example was about DMCA (or whatever the German > equivalent is) enforcement which is not normally classified as > internet abuse handling, that is a separate legal process that each > ISP handles per the advice of their legal team. > > It is peripheral to various abuse teams’ work so that set best > practice is evolving in that direction, but that is entirely moot in > this context. > > The RIPE region has several pockets of badness that are related to > issues other than copyright infringement, on which there is broad > consensus in ISP acceptable use policy and national law. > > Your periodically trying to steer the discussion away into banalities > about the minutiae of a catchall definition of internet abuse, let > alone agricultural metaphors, is, to use another such metaphor, > asinine. > > I don’t expect any significant or useful action from this group – not > since most every “internet name” in the RIPE region just happened to > be in the room during an AOB session to remove Richard Cox from his > role. > > There just isn’t any will to disturb a comfortable status quo, and a > lot of fautuous arguments against it from several people with zero > background in carrier grade internet abuse mitigation (rather than > databases, whois, routing and such), and I get that. > > --srs > >
