[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comments: Category 5

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Team:

My approach to comment analysis is:

1.  Read comment thoroughly, identify commenter's key positions.
2.  Revisit FF Draft Report, and determine if this information is
already present, or represents unconsidered information.
    2a.  If already present, identify location.
    2b.  If not, suggest possible point of inclusion
3.  Rinse, repeat.

------------------------------
Category 5:
------------------------------

5a.  Commenter was critical of the draft initial report as lacking in
sufficient data to form the basis of policy.  Also, claims that
malicious users are relatively few compared to legitimate users, meaning
that aggressive law enforcement investigation is preferred to ICANN
involvement.  But then seems to contradict this by saying that the focus
of mitigation efforts should be on preventing the name from resolving in
the DNS, rather than concentrating on the content hosted.

Recommendation:  Legitimate uses are covered in response to the "Who
Benefits?" charter question.  Discussion of whether or not ICANN is the
most appropriate body to address the issue is contained in Sections
7(b), 8.1, and 9

*******

5b:  Commenter enumerates the differences between legitimate uses of
Fast Flux, versus those used for criminal purposes.

Recommendation:  Legitimate uses are covered in response to the "Who
Benefits?" charter question.  Characteristics of malicious uses of Fast
Flux are covered in the sections "How Fast Flux Attacks Work" and "Fast
Flux Characteristics."