Re: [gnso-rap-dt] working definition of "abuse"

[George Kirikos <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx>]

Isn't the last part really trying to define what "illegitimate" means,
and thus there's some overlap?

"2. Is illegal or illegitimate, or is otherwise considered contrary to
the intention and design of a stated legitimate purpose, if such
purpose is disclosed."

According to the Merriam-Webster definition of "illegitimate":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegitimate

1: not recognized as lawful offspring ; specifically : born of parents
not married to each other
2: not rightly deduced or inferred : illogical
3: departing from the regular : erratic
4 a: not sanctioned by law : illegal b: not authorized by good usage c
of a taxon : published but not in accordance with the rules of the
relevant international code

I think we can eliminate #1, #2, 4.c. That leaves, 4.a. which
duplicates the "illegal" part of the current draft definition. And
also it leaves #3, "departing from the regular." And also 4.b "not
authorized by good usage."

Isn't EVERYTHING that is "considered contrary to the intention and
design of a stated legitimate purpose" also considered "departing from
the regular" or "not authorized by good usage"? Or, is there not a
100% overlap?

If we want to keep extra words in to emphasize a certain point,
without causing any harm, I suppose that's ok. But like others I'd
like to see eventually (perhaps not now) a definition that is very
tight and unambiguous -- one that is not left open to future
reinterpretation and/or gaming. I'm not sure we're there yet with any
of the draft definitions, but we might get there once we go through
various examples of what we think might be "abusive" behaviour that we
want the definition to capture.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/