On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:32:57 +0200 ox <andre@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@ox.co.za> wrote:

...

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:13:28 +0200 Andre Coetzee <andre@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