RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comment References, Interim Conclusions and Next Steps

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all:

Mike's changes need further discussion.  

1) Mike has inserted the sentence: "Alternatively, process could be adopted
such that a neutral expert would determine the validity of complaints of
malicious flux exploits."

That issue was already discussed and closed off.  Under Avri's work as
chair, the WG established consensus and confirmed the statements at line
1444 ff (see Draft_Fast_Flux_Final_Report_-_2_June_2009).  The report
summarizes there:
"The ideas for active engagement that were discussed by the WG included the
following; the group did not reach consensus on or endorse any of them:
. Adopt accelerated domain suspension processing in collaboration with
certified investigators/responders."

Mike's addition should therefore be stricken. 

2) Mike's edits at the end of the document change the meaning and purpose in
a manner not agreed to by the WG.  James's draft accurately reflects the
WG's discussion of how it wanted a way for people to "submit potential fast
flux domains for consideration by the working group" as part of its
research.  Mike has changed the draft to state that the WG wants ICANN to
create a reporting system for "parties that might take action against
illegitimate or illegal activity."  Those are two very different things.

Mike's change should be stricken.   The FFWG has never endorsed the idea
that ICANN create a WPDRS-like service for fast-flux, and has never endorsed
the idea that ICANN serve as a coordinator for any takedown-related
activities.  And there is no agreement that FF or domain takedowns are even
within ICANN's remit to address.  

I suggest that we also strike the idea of asking ICANN to fund or help
implement a fast-flux collection system for our research purposes.  I think
that idea was floated before we got the research from Karmasphere and Arbor.
I wonder if the thing would tell us anything new, and I wonder if any of us
honestly has the time to verify and sift the data.  There's no reason to
spend time and money on something that is not needed or might not be used.

3) James' version said: "Successful mitigation of any single technique would
only change the macro environment for Internet fraud and abuse."
Mike changed that do:
"Successful mitigation of any single technique is likely to change the macro
environment for Internet fraud and abuse."

Maybe neither is what we want.  If you look at the sentence after, the point
is that that phishing etc would still continue without FF.  I think it
should read: "Successful mitigation of any single technique is not likely to
change the macro environment for Internet fraud and abuse -- every attack
that is enhanced by the use of fast flux techniques could be pursued without
them, but possibly at higher cost or effort for the attacker." 

All bet,
--Greg 





-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 1:10 PM
To: 'fast flux fast flux'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comment References, Interim Conclusions and
Next Steps


Hi Greg, that may depend on which version of Word you use, and what view you
are in.  On my copy, my edits are in blue, James' in red.  When I mouse over
the edits, it clearly shows who made them.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:54 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'fast flux fast flux'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comment References, Interim Conclusions and
Next Steps


Mike, I am not sure which edits are yours.  Can you give me an example of
your changes, so I can distinguish them from the others?  I think this doc
has edits by two or three hands?

All best,
--Greg

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 12:38 PM
To: 'fast flux fast flux'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comment References, Interim Conclusions and
Next Steps

I have suggested edits to James rework of Secs 8/9, on attached.

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
+1.415.738.8087
www.rodenbaugh.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 1:40 PM
To: marika konings; fast flux fast flux
Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comment References, Interim Conclusions and
Next Steps

Team:

Apologies for the delay on these materials.My schedule got away from me
beginning on Thursday, and so this task was pushed to the weekend.

In any event, please find attached two separate documents.  The first
(spreadsheet) attaches references for the views of the WG on comments
received in response to the Initial Report.  Please note that these are in
no way an attempt to re-categorize the comments.  Instead, the goal is to
find the smallest number of sections / topics that sufficiently address
-all- comments.  I have included some sample language for each topic (needs
further word-smithing), which can be used individually or worked into the
comment analysis summary.

Next, I have made many changes to section 8 ("Interim Conclusions") and
section 9 ("Next Steps"). Please note that if you believe the text does not
accurately characterize the WG findings, or if there are significant
omissions, we can work through these on our call next Wednesday.

Thank you,

J.