Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Proposed additional text, section 5, answering 5.2-5.7 at 365-379

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

I respectfully disagree with your characterization and conclusion.

I think your approach will relegate insightful comments from many participants 
to a soon-to-be-forgotten mail archive.

On 9/2/08 3:58 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

c'mon guys.

Dave's list predates the whole huge discussion about the difference
between the harms attributable to fast flux the technique and the
attacks that fast flux enables.  that's at the heart of the
"troubles".  to staple that list in there as it stands would be to
overlook that whole discussion.

m

At 02:37 PM 9/2/2008, Dave Piscitello wrote:
>Mike,
>
>Please explain how you reached this conclusion or at least provide
>what you describe as our shared understanding. Joe and I appear to
>believe that my list is a shared understanding.
>
>
>On 9/2/08 2:56 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>those omissions were on purpose.  we had Dave's text in a previous
>draft, and removed it.  i concluded that we never really reviewed it
>(remember, it was posted very early in the conversation) and decided
>that it would not come very close to reflecting our (later) shared
>understanding.  your text never made it in, because it was quite
>unfocused and generated a wonderful side-trip into a bunch of issues
>around Port 25.  i would propose that we leave both proposed texts
>out of this draft, and let the next group develop more concise
>versions once the basic research has been done to provide the underpinnings.
>
>
>
>At 01:17 PM 9/2/2008, Joe St Sauver wrote:
>
> >--=======AVGMAIL-48BD85F50000=======
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> >
> >Lines 365-379 list six of the questions that the working group
> >was charged with addressing, including 5.2:
> >
> >    "Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would
> > be harmed?"
> >
> >Dave Piscitello's provided a fine answer to that question at
> ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00048.html><http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00048.html>http:
> //forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00048.html , one which I
> >commented on at
> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00055.html><http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00055.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00055.html
> >
> >I propose that that text be included as a response to 5.2
> >
> >When it comes to question 5.6, "How are Internet users affected by fast
> >flux hosting?" I addressed the question 5.6 in my note at
> ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00061.html><http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00061.html>http:
> //forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00061.html
> >
> >Again, I would propose that that text be included as a draft response to
> >5.6
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Joe
> >
> >Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own
> >--=======AVGMAIL-48BD85F50000=======
> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> >         boundary="=======AVGMAIL-48BD85F50000======="
> >
> >--=======AVGMAIL-48BD85F50000=======
> >Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >Content-Disposition: inline
> >Content-Description: "AVG certification"
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com><http://www.avg.com>http://www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1647 - Release Date:
> 9/2/2008 6:=
> >02 AM
> >
> >--=======AVGMAIL-48BD85F50000=======--
> >
> >--=======AVGMAIL-48BD85F50000=======--
>
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1647 - Release Date:
>9/2/2008 6:02 AM