Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[ox]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:37:32 +0200
ox  wrote:
> > you've missed my point
> I have not.
> > you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity...  that is, activity
> > for which permission has not been granted.  Fair enough (so far as
> > it goes)
> > > I do no such thing...
> > you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than
> > setting out a definition which has something to do with the
> > complexity of what permission means.
> no, you are wrong again...
> 
for sanity, lets skip to the part where the word "non" reverses the
permissiveness

"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
rights of another resource"

So: You are right, sanctioned is very important - but - you are wrong
about it being complex, it is not. 

It has two conditions - Sanctioned - OR non sanctioned

Sanctioned itself, is the infringement (action)  - by adding the
negative or the second condition to the definition, it means that 
it is non permissive action exercised by the "assignor or
administrative holder of rights"

So, it caters full well for 'orphans & children' and legacy
resources... as water flows downhill - with regards to Internet
resources, and luckily for us, not also uphill...

So, the administrative holder of any rights to a resource can change
(as in I can sell my domain name to you) and then me removing your
email address does not constitute 'abuse' 

I think that the simplicity of the definition is catching many people
of guard?


Andre 



Internet Abuse 


Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy
undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical.  The Internet
consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to
also understanding the use and interaction between these resources.

Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols,
credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical
examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even Email
addresses.

This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include identifying
the authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define
any rights to resources but simply to define what technically
constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources.


==
Definition of Internet abuse 
==

"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
of another resource"


Terminology used in the above definition


(1) Resource
Any Internet Resource

(2) Use and Usage
Any direct or indirect action involving a resource

(3) Rights
The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the authoritative
holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement or
reasonable 
expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned
resource

(4) Sanctioned
An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative holder
of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission is granted
by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or
action.   

(5) Infringe
An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or
encroaches upon the fair use of a resource

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[ox]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:41:56 +0100
Richard Clayton  wrote:
> In message , ox  writes
> >Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite
> >correct about the abuse from legacy resources.
> no -- I was concerned about abuse OF legacy resources :(
> >However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a
> >resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
> >So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy
> >resources...
> >Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to
> >reflect 
> 
> you've missed my point
> 
I have not.

> you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity...  that is, activity
> for which permission has not been granted.  Fair enough (so far as it
> goes)
> 
I do no such thing...

> you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than
> setting out a definition which has something to do with the complexity
> of what permission means.
> 
no, you are wrong again...

Let me help you with it?

Abuse core definition: - Read it :: s l o w l y 

-
use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
-

Then, read my previous reply, again?


Richard,

Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite
correct about the abuse from legacy resources.

However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a
resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource

So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy resources...

Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to
reflect that when I, the owner of domain example.com "abuses" the
rich...@example.com resource - by deleting richard@  (of course this
extends to RIR and other resources as well)

In the case of 'sanctioned' as above, when a legacy resource user is
denied the use of that resource by new 'administrative holder' of
rights to that resource, that would then not be 'abuse' as such 'abuse'
would in fact be sanctioned.

So, if you read it like that, do you agree that it is the right way
around and is correct?

Thank you so much for contributing and helping

Andre


On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 17:26:48 +0100
Richard Clayton  wrote:
> >==
> >Definition of Internet abuse 
> >==
> >"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
> >rights of another resource"
> >
> >Terminology used in the above definition
> >
> >(5) Sanctioned
> >Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or
> >administrative holder of rights to a resource  
> that definition of "sanctioned" is backwards from what you intend to
> say
> (not that I think it's a useful thing to say in such continuing
> isolation, but you might as well make it coherent)
> BTW: a considerable chunk of the problem, in practice, relates to
> abuse of "legacy" resources. The assignor is dead and the argument is
> made that there can be no administration of them ...
>   





> - -- 
> richard   Richard
> Clayton
> 
> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin
> Franklin 11 Nov 1755
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
> 
> iQA/AwUBV84s9Du8z1Kouez7EQI4KACgvPCyK4SimvypTL/bmW79vlB5MPMAnRjx
> bzv3dryAeKzfhnlmOdXK1UL2
> =9ogY
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[Richard Clayton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

In message , ox  writes

>Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite
>correct about the abuse from legacy resources.

no -- I was concerned about abuse OF legacy resources :(

>However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a
>resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
>
>So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy resources...
>
>Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to
>reflect 

you've missed my point

you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity...  that is, activity for
which permission has not been granted.  Fair enough (so far as it goes)

you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than
setting out a definition which has something to do with the complexity
of what permission means.

- -- 
richard   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBV84s9Du8z1Kouez7EQI4KACgvPCyK4SimvypTL/bmW79vlB5MPMAnRjx
bzv3dryAeKzfhnlmOdXK1UL2
=9ogY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse - The agony of trying to unsubscribe

[Marilson]

“People say we live in an age of information overload. Right? I don't know 
about that, but I just know that I get too many marketing emails.”
“...I scrolled down to the bottom of the email, and I pressed, "Unsubscribe." 
And I thought that'd be the end of it. But a week later, I got another one that 
said,...”
“And I thought, obviously, I haven't clicked hard enough. So I tried it again. 
Right? Lo and behold, a week passes, you guessed it,...”
“And I was really annoyed with them, and I thought, OK, I was about to write a 
strongly worded email, which I can do quite well.”

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_veitch_the_agony_of_trying_to_unsubscribe

So Andre, people who do this say they are not committing INTERNET ABUSE because 
they put a link to unsubscribe. This is too much hypocrisy or they really 
believe that we are mentally feeble?
According to your concerns as you classify this attitude?

I see billions of spam

Red scam too

I see them blomm

For me and you

And I think to myself

What a wonderful word



I see skies of shit

And Clouds of bits

The bright blessed day

Become a dark pit

And I think to myself

What a wonderful word



The colors of the messages

So pretty in the sky

Are also on the faces

Of spammers going by

I see friends wasting time

Saying: "What can we do?"

They are really saying

"I hate all of you"

Yes, I think to myself

What a wonderful world


Thanks
Marilson