Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Topics for today's Fast Flux call

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A few items that I'm aware of:

   - Liz could remind the call participants of the prior discussion on 
the absolute meaning of the text she wrote and the GNSO C voted, as 
there still is some disagreement, mostly off list, over whether the 
terms used in the GNSO C motion authorizing this activity are literal in 
nature and exhaustive in scope. In particular, there is the 
misunderstanding over whether or not "fastflux" is a _technical_ term, 
or a social term. I think David and I and possibly others can't agree 
that it is a technical, and value neutral term, without serious loss of 
meaning. For the lawyers on the call, this is similar to using "alleged" 
when talking about the accused prior to trial. Its absence is noticeable.
   - I will reduce the 10k domain set Jose provided into a { domain :: 
tld :: registrar } tuple, for the registrar question. There are other 
data sets but one is sufficient for this WG, and for the RC, to 
transition from data free discussion to discussion informed by data. So 
Monday I'll send that to the RC list as well as the (possibly revised) 
WG question(s), and any that pop into my head between today and Monday. 
I'll send the same list to Mike to stuff into the wiki.
   - I sent out a draft of a restatement of scope, and it needs work, 
and I'll get a revised draft of that out ... mid-week. In a nutshell, 
the scope is too specific to a form of evasion (of costs of (possibly 
inherently criminal) business, of consequences), and as someone 
remarked, is akin to cough syrup to treat lung cancer, so here is the 
restatement ...
   - The assumptions about the costs of "fastflux" to one or more 
identified group (pity "registrants" aren't a constituency, then I could 
have used "constituency" instead of "group") may not be correct. This is 
a corollary to the prior item, but in a nutshell, are the "bad effects" 
on parties other than those trying to shut down some botnet's campaign 
of the moment actually increassed by "fastflux"? I think if we look 
carefully at each of these use cases we may find that the implied 
increase in cost is difficult to support for one or more.
Cheers,
Eric

Mike O'Connor wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We've covered a lot of ground over the last week and the conversation 
> this morning should be very lively and helpful.
> Here's a tentative agenda;
>
> - Revise the agenda
>
> - Briefly review status of Action Items from last week
>
>         - email threads on "questions"
>
>         - reaching out for data
>
>         - reaching out to "legitimate users" of fastflux
>
> - Briefly review the updates to the Interim-Report section of the wiki
>
> - Discussion topics
>
>         - Definition of fastflux
>
>         - Data needs -- is fastflux a problem that needs to be solved?
>
>         - Other topics that would benefit from some conversation?
>
> - Plans for the upcoming week
>
> - Other business
>
> Cheers,
>
> m
>
>
> voice: 651-647-6109
> fax: 866-280-2356
>
> web: www.haven2.com
>
>
>
>