Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Rasmussen/Piscitello action 4.h

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

Greg, the compensation statement comes from a number of comments made by
George Kirikos while he was a member of the WG. I realize he and several
others who were very concerned about false positives are no long active
members, but I wanted to reflect their input. I imagine this is a matter
registrars deal with today, perhaps the WG might want to reflect that this
is already accommodated and would apply to FF false positive situations?


On 5/6/09 9:46 AM  May 6, 2009, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I recommend that the first two sentences be amended to read: "The FF WG
> concurs with this comment. The FF WG encourages registrars and
> registries to adopt recognized best practices to curtail Fast Flux."
> 
> (Recommendations about "all forms of abuse" take us in another direction,
> including a discussion of what "all" abuses might consist of.  It's just
> beyond the ambit of the FFWG group and I don't want to draw things out
> further.)
> 
> I also recommend we cut this text from the last bullet:
> "compensating a registrant whose"
> This is an issue that registrars already deal with all the time.  (They
> suspend domains regularly for all kinds of problems.)  And this is a
> business and market issue, not a technical or procedural one.  Depending on
> the situation, compensation might not even be in order.
> 
> All best,
> --Greg
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Piscitello [mailto:dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:36 AM
> To: Fast Flux Workgroup
> Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Rasmussen/Piscitello action 4.h
> 
> 
> (4.h) Encourage registrars to adopt recognized best practices
> designed to curtail the harms caused by illegitimate uses of
> fast flux hosting
> 
> 
> Proposed response:
> 
> The FF WG concurs with this comment. The FF WG encourages registrars and
> registries to adopt recognized best practices to curtail all forms of abuse,
> not just Fast Flux.  Best practices are by definition things that everyone
> in an industry should look to adopt. As described in the responses to (4.a,
> 4.f), the devil is in the details. While there are practices designed to
> detect what is suspected to be fast flux today, and some of these are very
> accurate, additional study is required to
> 
> - demonstrate that the algorithm(s) registrars use has a very
>   low rate of false positives
> - identify an acceptable rate of false positives,
> - identify what actions registrars are to take (in considerable detail)
>   when evidence of fast flux hosting is presented
> - identify a process through which parties who submit evidence of FF hosting
>   are deemed to be trustworthy
> - identify a process of restoring service and compensating a
>   registrant whose domain was suspended based on a false positive
>   report of fast flux hosting
> 
>