Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Placeholder comments on Section 8

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

This might work if I were coming home any time soon but I leave Sofia to attend 
meeting in Tallin Estonia. I get home late Saturday.

I need to understand what deadlines we must meet that cause you to say we are 
out of time. Can you please identify these for the WG to consider?

I'll also note that it's challenging to vote in absentia.


On 9/8/08 11:09 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

i really don't want to slip the release date of
the Initial report -- we're basically out of
slack time, and slipping past next week means
that we won't be able to fit the rest of the tasks in before Cairo.

so here's what i propose.

- let's insert Dave's placeholders in Marika's
list and poll the group on them during the call Wednesday
- we'll acknowledge that they're placeholders and
that more refined versions are on the way
- Dave can write the refined versions and submit
them to the list by the end of the week
- on reading the final versions, anybody who
wants to change their vote can do so up until
next Tuesday and we'll record those changes in the final draft

does that work?

thanks Dave!  happy juggling!

m

At 08:33 AM 9/8/2008, Dave Piscitello wrote:

>I'm juggling my attention between conference participation, FFWG (you saw my
>post), competing against a 7-10 hour time difference from the US where most
>of the members reside, and an agenda that will carry late into the night
>here. Tomorrow is no better, and I am in transit to Tallin Wednesday.
>
>I am unlikely to have time to compose a thoughtful alternative text today.
>
>I think much has been accomplished in revising the report. More could be
>done if we extend the review/comment period another week and I hope this
>will be discussed Wednesday. Meanwhile, here are some hasty notes that I
>hope will serve as placeholders for text I'll submit when I return to my
>office.
>
>Lines 597+
>
>8.1 Conclusions
>
>This section needs to be revised to reflect changes in preceding text,
>particularly the definition of FF. I also think that there are other
>conclusions worthy of inclusion:
>
>- conclusions relating how fast flux is only one form of flux attack
>- conclusions relating the challenges posed when attempting to associate an
>intent to networks that employ fast flux techniques (I think that the text
>that characterize fast flux in attacks versus fast flux in
>production/operational networks pushes us in a promising direction, mine is
>an attempt to reconcile the definitions work of Randy, George, Greg and my
>own.
>
>Line 611+
>
>8.2 Possible next steps (and subsections)
>
>- delete all references to consensus, rough consensus, minority, etc.  We do
>not need consensus to include possible next steps - IMO the fact that we
>offer several is sufficient to meet our remit.
>
>Lines 622-624 - delete this note. I believe it's accurate that the group
>agreed to publish a report. I don't think we can accurately gauge support
>for P1 or P2 until we all have an opportunity to review - and I would
>encourage a roll call of opinion if not a formal vote to show support for
>each (P1, P2, and any others that may be added).
>
>- who is the WG recommending consider these options? A continuance of this
>WG, a new WG? The GNSO council?
>
>Lines 632-649
>
>- S1 does not discuss "roles and players" - for example, there are several
>discussions in various threads relating to collecting data, making it
>available, but no clear understanding who is collecting and who gets to
>access the data. There are also "historical data and analysis" discussions.
>These are not adequatel distinguished in S1.
>- S1 discusses developing algorithms but does not talk about testing, nor
>does it define a target metric value for "false positives"
>- Similarly, S1 does not identify the target entities for financial and
>operational justifications - registrants, ISPs, users, registrars,
>registries, ICANN, all?
>
>Lines 628-630
>
>- once we sort out S1, S2 through S4 must be presented in the same level of
>detail or we prejudice the choice by providing too little information for
>comparing the options.
>
>Line 673+
>
>- Why is SSAC excluded from the list of stakeholders?
>
>Line 666+
>
>- I think there is a third option that is "broader than fast flux and
>smaller than (all) fraud and abuse". We have talked about slow flux, double
>flux, and characteristics that have less to do with TTL values and more to
>do with other network attributes that make the network "volatile" We should
>include this option and it should fall within GNSO's remit.
>
>Lines 695+
>
>- I don't think we have discussed approaches enough to make the claims
>included in this section. I think "weak rough consensus" is an impossible
>term to parse and object to notes making such claims without some roll call
>or recorded vote.
>
>Lines 710
>
>- Please provide the roll call or vote that corroborates the claim that the
>group is evenly divided or remove this.
>
>Line 719
>
>- this can be rephrased as a question to the GNSO and ICANN board.
>
>
>That's all I have time for now. I'll try to continue later.
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1659
>- Release Date: 9/8/2008 7:01 AM