Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Placeholder comments on Section 8
Attached is a word document that contains my proposed replacement text for section 8 and 8.1. The rationale is in the earlier email. The comments subsequent to line 611+ require discussion before suggested text can be provided, or are deletions. On 9/8/08 9:33 AM, "Dave Piscitello" <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx> 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. Attachment:
Conclusions and Possible Next Steps.doc
|