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@ripe.net on behalf of dhc@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