RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Possible minority view?

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I politely disagree with Joe.  I think the two relevant criteria were
established, which were: 

A) UltraReach met the technical definition of fast-flux.  
Its domains were rapidly and repeatedly changing A records as observed by
making DNS queries.  Also met many additional criteria, such as being on
were on low TTLs and moving across diverse ASNs.  There seems to have been
some proxying going on underneath, but that doesn't negate the basics.  A
gray area was whether some or all UltraReach nodes were compromised.  We
don't know.  Which makes it an interesting example of the issues surrounding
false-positives and intent.  Understanding what was going on there, to the
extent we do know, required some world-class investigation.

B) UltraReach is a speech organization, with a public history.  (Setting
aside their methods and politics, which we are not judging.)

I think the main thrust stands, which is that if you create a solution that
targets a technical implementation, you're affecting everyone who uses that
technique or technology.  UltraReach is an example of one such entity
observed in the wild, and such entities are potential victims of unintended
consequences. 

All best,
--Greg




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe St Sauver
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 12:15 PM
To: dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Possible minority view?


Dave asked:

#Line 388 has the title " Possible minority view "
#
#- do we know enough to conclude that this is a minority view?

It is certainly my belief that we have NOT seen documented 
evidence that fast flux (narrowly defined) enables free 
speech/censorship avoidance. We had extensive discussion of
the UltraReach example, but recall that when you look at that
example *closely*, it was really a "different animal," and 
not fastflux. 

I'd be happy to rehash those technical differences if folks 
are interested, but in the interest of keeping this note short, 
I'll refrain from doing so here unless folks speak up and want 
to hear more about that topic.

So if your question was, "Does anyone believe there's a lack
of evidence to actually support that category," yes, I'll put
my hand up.

Or was your point really that suddenly we have Yet Another
Category of agreement/disagreement, departing from the
three categories we'd already established? (Agreement, some 
support, alternative view)

Regards,

Joe