Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Wording for Possible Next Steps data collection

[Joe St Sauver <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Martin!

#However, some of the big questions to come up when this kind of thing  
#is raised in an industry group, beyond requirements and design, are:
#
#1. Who implements such a system?

If the group needs or wants data, I'd suggest the group's membership
should, or if ICANN GNSO doesn't like that, they could always hire
a coder of their choice to do it.

#2. Who, if anyone, pays for it (bearing in mind that you do get what  
#you pay for)?

It is probably a reflection of my cowboy mentality, but you could
certainly build a system to accept nominated domain name w/o that much 
work.

I'd be happy to donate http://www.uoregon.edu/~joe/fastflux/simple.cgi
as a starting point.

Alternatively, at the risk of treating this like a "Who's buried in
Grant's Tomb?" question, if this is an ICANN project, I'd assume ICANN
might host it, for example. 

#3. What's the relationship of the industry group to such a system?

I see industry groups as contributing data and consuming data, much as
they do for things like Phishtank. (Or was their some specific industry
group you had in mind?)

#If we're going to get the document to the next phase real soon now, I  
#support including general language about the benefit of a  
#collaborative approach. Practically, this mean including your draft  
#paragraphs up to and including the one starting "a recommended next  
#step".
#
#Beyond that, however, i wonder if this gets us into detailed and  
#extended requirements and design discussions that we should leave  
#either to the subsequent phase or continue to discuss but without  
#including the specifics in the the doc we're trying to get to public  
#comment?

Depends on whether we need "non-annecdotal evidence" to proceed.

Personally, I think we've got a pretty good handle on what's going
on, but every time I look at a draft document and see language
like, "We need further study" or "We don't know how to operationally
identify fast flux hosts" that implies (at least to me) we need
data. 

If we don't need further data, that's great, let's adjust the 
language currently in the report to reflect that. 

If we do need data, I'd like to get set up to start collecting it. :-)

Probably way too straight forward an agenda, but you know me. :-)

Regards,

Joe

Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own