On Dec 12, 2016, at 8:56 PM, policy@paulmcgrady.com wrote:

Quick check of the ICANN website seems to indicate all sorts of references to DNS Abuse. Rubens, does something need a computer science definition even if the rest of the community seems to already know what it is?

If we want to define a standard, the answer is yes, we need a computer science definition; if we want to define practices, then we don't need. That's why the community has been defining practices but no standards for almost 20 years; that's what we can do, given the circumstances. Let's drill down on one thing that is behind a standard in almost every human knowledge area: a taxonomy. No taxonomy survived more than a couple of years in the Abuse area, and every yearly meeting of APWG and M3AAWG one of the presentations is likely to be one of a new taxonomy. Now trying building a framework where the taxonomy keeps changing... it falls apart every time and needs to be rebuilt every time. The lack of definition is a good thing, though; it allows an evolving threat scenario to be dealt with by an evolving anti-abuse culture and continuously improved anti-abuse procedures. The opponent we need to fight follows a famous Asian strategist: "When campaigning, be swift as the wind; (…) as unfathomable as the clouds, move like a thunderbolt.” ; if we stay in a single place with a single way of defending we will start being more vulnerable. Law of Unintended Consequences at its best. Rubens