RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] 7a, 7b, 7c

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

RE: Public Comments Issue Group 7, "Who Is Benefiting from Fast Flux?"  

Issue:
Jeff Williams (7a) and Dr. Gary Warner (7b) take issue with the
suggestion that free speech/advocacy groups use FF techniques (see Draft
Final Report (24APR09) lines 150 and 494-497).  Both comments deny the
existence of such implementations.  Dr. Warner further notes that
support for the proposed "anti-censorship" theory could put ICANN in the
"unacceptable" position of condoning the violation of local law(s).  

Proposed Response:
IIRC, the WG debated whether anti-censorship groups were using FF
techniques.  Some WG members insisted on noting such "beneficial" use -
even though they could not identify any real world examples.  

Given the concerns raised by Dr. Warner (a well-respected computer
forensics researcher), I suggest adding at Line 150 the following
parenthetical:

Free speech/advocacy groups (at least theoretically, as no active
implementations could be identified)

And revising (new text in CAPS) Lines 494-497 to read:

494     The working group also explored the POTENTIAL use of fast flux
by service providers wishing to deal

495     with situations in which a government or other actor is
deliberately preventing access to their

496     services from within a country or region, or is engaged in
broader censorship.  ALTHOUGH NO ACTIVE EXAMPLES COULD BE IDENTIFIED,
this was

497     described as a possible "legitimate use."  IN ANY EVENT, THE WG
DOES NOT CONDONE OR ENCOURAGE THE VIOLATION OF LOCAL LAW(S).


Issue:
Dr. Gary Warner (7c) urges the report to include "criminal entities" on
the list of those who benefit from Fast Flux.

Proposed Response:
We may want to add a new bullet at Line 151 - CRIMINAL ENTITIES.  The
Draft Final Report already notes "criminals, terrorists, and, generally,
any organization that operates a fast flux attack network" at Line
193-194.