On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:32:57 +0200
ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote:
>
> I think this now works... any comments?
>
Also, just to add the outstanding non specific objections that I know
of, from other threads:
1. Gunther says that a single resource can abuse, I presume itself?
(as in for example you send yourself spam, I guess, as he did not reply
to requests for a real world example of such a single resource abuse
on a network / Internet, abuse)
2. I do not understand Marilson's objections - apparently if someone
steals your pc it is Internet abuse, I eventually thought he meant that
the computer was stolen and used to send spam, --> but the definition
works for that, he agreed the definition stands...,
but then he seems to say that it does not? for an unknown and
non specific reason except that it may or may not include defining
"theft"
3. Suresh says the proposed definition is too "narrow" and I need to
consult with "abuse policy enforcement and network security" experts
to know or understand why.
He also says: "Your definition of abuse will not stand."
and abuse discussions about defining Internet Abuse is
the "blind leading the blind"
My comments to the all the above objections are: I do not understand
any of them, they make no sense and they are mysterious, secret or
something?
If any of these are in any way valid or contributes to understanding
Internet Abuse, please supply any real world examples
Even just a single, as in ONE real world example.
If the objectors do not even have or cannot even supply, a single real
world example, it simply means that they are objecting for the simple
sake of objecting and have no valid contribution to make. As an abuse
WG discussing many forms of Internet Abuse, much of which is also
criminal activity, cyber crime and criminal syndicates, one has to
question the motives of simply objecting to something without being
able to supply a practical and real example of that which you are
stating as a fact.
If they do not provide any real world examples of course their
objections means nothing - as it is just "noise", interference or
obstruction...
If any of the objectors provide actual real world examples, of
network (Internet) abuse that the definition does not include, this
may advance the understanding of Internet Abuse and could serve to
improve, change or further define the definition of what Internet Abuse
is as well as what it is not.
If there are any additional objections that I may have missed, please
let me know and let us move forward in our understanding of what
Internet Abuse is, so that when we talk about Internet Abuse, we all
understand what we are talking about the same thing and not about "we
will know it when we see it", because maybe we will not see or know
it and very probably we may be all talking about different things and
using the same words to do that.
It is not in the Interest of many organisations that there should exist
a common definition of Internet Abuse, as this is the first step towards
effectively educating civil society about exactly what it is and what
it is not.
At the very least, a technical definition of Internet Abuse should be
the work product of this group, as it is supposedly our rai·son d'ê·tre
André
> ============
> 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) Infringe
> An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or
> encroaches upon the fair use of a resource
>
> (5) Sanctioned
> Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or
> administrative holder of rights to a resource
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:05:59 +0200
> ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:13:28 +0200
> > Andre Coetzee <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote:
> >
> > > The definition of Internet Abuse seems to be done, can everyone
> > > please have a look and see if there are any final issues?
> > >
> > After another off list comment, the description of 'sanctioned' may
> > require a change.
> > (Big thank you to everyone that has helped me, on and off list)
> >
> >
> > There is still a problem with 'sanctioned' (as originally identified
> > by Gert Doering - as complicated :) )
> >
> > I do not have any solution or suggestion myself, yet, and will need
> > to think about the problem more...
> >
> > as, what happens when the registrant of an entire TLD authorises the
> > use of that TLD to send spam....
> >
> > ++++++++++++++
> > "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
> > rights of another 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.
> > +++++++++++++++
> >
> > Andre
> >
>
>
