Ronald, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 05/03/2013 20:36:
In message <5135CE73.9030500@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
This is the draft agenda for the RIPE 66 meeting...
No agenda item about defining (or refining the definition of) "abuse"?
Nope.
I'd like to just reiterate my view that all other activities of this WG will be utterly fruitless until such time as a reasonable, rational, and generally accepted definition of "abuse" is in hand.
I genuinely don't think it will be useful to spend time on this. I think an attempt to get a consensual definition of abuse would take the whole of the session in Dublin and every session thereafter and after all that time, I still don't think we would have got anywhere. If the rest of the WG disagrees with me, then we can raise it, but if n = the number of people in the WG, I fear we would have n + 1 definitions.
P.S. I am still not sure if any other things that drew me to this mailing list, or to this WG, or that I have reported here, over time, are or are not considered abuse. (And by that I mean "formally" considered.)
I certainly believe they are, everyone else seems largely to agree, so we're good. See above regarding my opinions on formal definitions. Brian