Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comments on Section 6.1, lines 486-516

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i would prefer that you reframe this as a personal statement that 
we'll add to the back of the report, rather than interspersing this 
with the summary of the Constituency view.
i'm also open to the idea of dropping the recap section.

m

At 02:44 PM 9/2/2008, Joe St Sauver wrote:

> --=======AVGMAIL-48BD99F70000=======
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> Lines 486-489:
>
>    "The Ryc, NCUC and RC members all recognise that fast flux is being used
>    by miscreantsinvolved in online crime to evade detection, but at the
>    same time question whether ICANN is the appropriate body to deal with
>    this issue. All three emphasize that it is not in ICANN's remit to
>    act as an extension of law enforcement or put registries or registrars
>    in this position."
>
> I would suggest the addition of
>
>    "Some members of the working group suggest that ICANN/the registries/
>    the registrars are not being asked to act as an extension of law
>    enforcement, but rather are merely being asked to facilitate
>    compliance with existing laws and regulation when ICANN/the
>    registries/the registrars are uniquely situated to do so."
>
> Lines 495-499:
>
>    "Furthermore, the RyC points out that any GNSO policy initiative
>    would have very limited impact as it would "only be applicable to
>    gTLD registries and registrars, while ccTLD domain names are also used
>    for fast flux hosting, which compromise almost half of the domain
>    names on the Internet". ICANN policy could then simply be circumvented
>    by switching to ccTLD domain names."
>
> Following that text, I would suggest the addition
>
>    "The rejoinder from some members of the working group is that while
>    GNSO is not responsible for administering ccTLD policy, by showing
>    leadership in administration of gTLD domains policies (including
>    policies dealing with fastflux), GNSO actions may indirectly influence
>    the ccTLD policy development process."
>
> Lines 501-503:
>
>    "The RyC, NCUC and RC members all point to the lack of data and the
>    absence of supporting evidence outlining the scope of fast flux which
>    is a necessity in order to balance cost -- benefit of any potential
>    solutions."
>
> Following that text I would suggest adding:
>
>    "At least one participant in the working group notes that substantial
>    data was offered to the working group, both with respect to fast flux
>    usage, and the costs associated with malicious activity facilitated
>    by fast flux techniques."
>
> Lines 508-510:
>
>    "The RyC points out that some of the solutions discussed by the
>    Working Group "are currently impossible, or would require significant
>    revisions to DNS protocols, or would require significant upgrades in
>    deployed resolver code."
>
> Following that text, I would suggest adding,
>
>    "Contrary to that perspective, working group members have described
>    how required solutions can be implemented using existing record
>    types and the existing/deployed resolver code base, so that protocol
>    changes and changes to installed software is not required. See, for
>    example: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00085.html "
>
> Alternatively, if folks believe that the constituency statements should
> not be subject to comment, I'd be okay with the omission of the section
> 6 recap/summary, allowing the constituency statements to just stand on
> their own, unaltered/uncommented, as appendicies.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joe
>
> Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own
> --=======AVGMAIL-48BD99F70000=======
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="=======AVGMAIL-48BD99F70000======="
>
> --=======AVGMAIL-48BD99F70000=======
> 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
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1647 - Release Date: 9/2/2008 6:=
> 02 AM
>
> --=======AVGMAIL-48BD99F70000=======--
>
> --=======AVGMAIL-48BD99F70000=======--