Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] case study: fluxing domains used for unusual purpose

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you. I read both with interest. As I share my laptop with an 8 
year old with autism, I try to be more kosher than just "work safe", I 
go for glatt. However, there is now a video of Teletubbies with the 
unfortunate lyrics of "shake your ass", and possibly many more than one 
copy in cache, so my laptop is probably hopelessly compromised. On the 
up-side, there is no causal relationship between device content and 
device seizure when transiting the border of the United States, so my 
risk of theft of laptop isn't increased by Tubbies shaking their behinds 
to rap.
While reading the testimony of Shiyu Zhou, Ph.D., Deputy Director, 
Global Internet Freedom Consortium, I recalled something I learned over 
dinner with a researcher I won't name, but who's been with us at ICANN 
meetings since the early years. Counter-intuitively, the longer 
government is more involved in ICANN process, the more restrictive the 
associated access policies are. This was a survey data directed 
observation, not specifically directed at the USG or any other 
particular government.
Which brings me to an awkward point. The process by which this 
PDP-related work group has been staffed has adequately represented some 
interests, but not sufficiently some other interests. The expressions of 
concerns by Wendy and Christian suggest the existence of data that could 
be the equivalent, in terms of utility to the stated purpose of the 
Working Group, as the data offered by the adequately represented interests.
I've been concerned about the problem of examples, of data, since we 
began. Data appears, on its face, without agency or purpose, but that is 
a fiction. Selection of data selects outcomes.
Eric

RLVaughn wrote:
> My apologies for my horrible form of replying to my own message but
> some clarification may be necessary.
>
> > youtube.ru
> >
> > I have drawn a conclusion about the above domain.  It is not fastflux
> as it fails the compromised hosts test
>
> > but is wildcarding requests to IPs for other purposes.  I do not
> > conclude, however, the purpose of said wildcarding is directly related
> > to the stated purpose of circumventing Internet censorship.
> This is not to imply anything nefarious is going on with the IPs.  In 
> fact,
> I expect the use of the IPs has yet another use.
>
> I would have mentioned some of the destination domains would not be 
> the wisest domains to visit using computers at work but am confident 
> no one on this group uses their employer's network resources for 
> causal Internet use.
> > RLV