[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Saturday Harms

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Dave's note "Jump start on answering GNSO questions regarding fast flux" 
of July 1st restated the "benefits/harms from/by fast flux" question as 
"benefits from short TTLs" and "harmed by fast flux", which kicked off 
our still-incomplete attempt to correct the language of our point of 
departure.

In the list of "harmed by", Dave listed several cases. I commented on 
several, in particular these two:
   1. Individuals whose computers are infected ...

   2. Businesses and organizations whose computers are infected ...

In a nutshell, Dave pointed out that the consequences for individuals, 
business and organizations who's computers are infected and subsequently 
used by (and I'll leave this as "fast flux" even though we've no 
consensus on terminology) "fast flux" are non-trivial. Denial of service 
by their local access ISP. Far too much service by their local law 
enforcement.
In a nutshell, my comment was that the consequences are immanent* when 
these computers are infected, and the infected computers are a 
commodity, and used until "busy, hung or dead" by the author(s) of the 
infection(s). They don't get particularly more "busy, hung or dead" if 
used for "fast flux". 

A few days ago** I wrote that Registrants (capitalized, because I'm 
addressing a specific, contract-created role in a set of 
contract-defined relationships between gTLD parties, bounded above by 
100 million) are not harmed by "fast flux". I looked at the probability 
of harm, and found that it is, as we say in Maine, "wicked small".
I should have also pointed out then that while it is true that 
Registrants are harmed by the taking of domains by non-Registrants (or 
Other Registrants), but they are no more harmed by "fast flux" than by 
any other non-Registrant taking that is not permitted by ICANN Consensus 
Policies. Like repurposed (infected and exploited) PCs, domains don't 
get particularly more "busy, hung or dead" if used for "fast flux".
Today, while Mike is out killing living things with a mower and a chain 
saw, I'm going to offer the following:
A. Registrants are not harmed by "fast flux". Hijacking and so forth do 
harm Registrants, but very little is known to Registrars (and no other 
party within ICANN is in a position to have better information than 
Registrars) that is specific to "fast flux", so "fast flux" adds no 
known additional harm to Registrants beyond the set of harms we already 
know about, and have previously developed PDPs to address (or are still 
dickering over).
B. Registrars are not harmed by "fast flux". Credit card fraud is a 
given, its why we have the Add Grace Period, and take-down requests from 
a variety of sources are a given, and dispute claims and their 
resolution processes are a given, as well as system loading for dynamic 
update are given, so "fast flux" adds no known additional harm to 
Registrars beyond the set of harms we already know about, and have 
previously developed PDPs to address (or are still dickering over).
C. Registries are not harmed by "fast flux". Transfer interventions, 
Registrar support costs, and system loading for dynamic update are all 
givens, so "fast flux" adds no known additional harm to Registries 
beyond the set of harms we already know about, and have previously 
developed PDPs to address (or are still dickering over).
While its been most of a decade since I last operated an access ISP (a 
dialup operation serving Maine), and its been about that long since I've 
seen any interest in ICANN by the operational side of transit or access 
network providers, I'm going to offer my experience for that 
Constituency (left somewhere behind), that --
D. ISPs are not harmed by "fast flux". A whole bunch of bad things are 
givens for ISPs, so "fast flux" adds no known additional harm to ISPs 
beyond the set of harms they already know about. A counter-proof would 
be something of the form "X lost block Y because Y[i,j,k] were used in a 
FF".
I don't play a lawyer on the net or on TV, let alone an IP practitioner, 
but given A, above --
E. Intellectual Property holders are not harmed by "fast flux". A 
counter-proof would be something of the form "X lost mark M in 
jurisdiction Y(s) because M was used in a FF conducted or prosecuted in 
jurisdiction Z(s)".
Because the BC brought this (I'm sure Mike R. will correct me even if 
I'm right), I'm assuming that some businesses are harmed by "fast flux", 
and their harm is distinct from the harms they experience from other causes.
I'm not "At Large" either , but my guess is that --

F. ALC interests are not harmed by "fast flux". A whole bunch of bad 
things are givens for the interests represented by the ALC, and "fast 
flux" adds no known additional harm to those interests beyond the set of 
harms they already know about and have previously developed PDPs to 
address (or are still dickering over).
My goal is to try and get a better understanding, even if just for my 
self, of what the harms are, and what they are not. I'm not trying to 
change anyone's mind that has already come to some other conclusions I 
haven't learned to share.
I don't know what harm to the environment Mike will wreak tomorrow, but 
I'll try "benefits" on Sunday.
Eric
---------
* In popular Indian culture we say "Coyote waits" (or Raven or Racoon or 
...), meaning that a trick, or adverse outcome, is waiting for those 
without foresight or common sense. It is latent malice.
** message id: <487F214F.5030402@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>