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

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

Thanks, Greg.  Obviously, I didn't recall correctly.  Upon reviewing the
original debate from last July, it's clear the WG does have a valid
"anti-censorship" example in Ultrareach - regardless of issues this
service may raise in some jurisdictions.

Your formulation (below) is better and should be inserted into the Final
Report as Lines 494-497.  

Best, P

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:29 PM
To: Diaz, Paul; 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] 7a, 7b, 7c

Dear Paul:

In his public comment
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/fast-flux-initial-report/msg00024.html),
Gary
Warner acknowledged that a real-world example (Ultrareach) does exist.
Gary
didn't like some of the political implications of it.  That doesn't
negate
the existence of the service, or the fact that the existence of such
services raises thorny issues. 

So I propose this text, working off of your suggestion: 
"The working group also identified the use of fast flux by service
providers
wishing to deal with situations in which a government or other actor is
deliberately preventing access to services from within a country or
region,
or is engaged in censorship.  This was described as a possible
'legitimate
use.'  We note that legality may vary by jurisdiction, and that the WG
is
not taking a position on the legality or illegality of any particular
service provider's implementation."

And do not include the words "(at least theoretically, as no active
implementations could be identified)"

See also report line 2218, and thread around July 16th at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/mail14.html 
The thread includes DNS query examples and background.  

All best,
--Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Diaz, Paul [mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:20 PM
To: Fast Flux Workgroup
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] 7a, 7b, 7c


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.