RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Chapter 8 - Interim conclusions

[Joe St Sauver <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I have some concerns with the assertion that:

#Measures are needed to ensure that parties reporting fast flux activity 
#are to be trusted.

I don't get that. A fully qualified domain name could be submitted just
as readily by the head of the United Nations or the shadiest of confidence 
men using a smuggled cell phone while in jail, and it wouldn't matter in 
the slightest. A reported fast flux host can be objectively evaluated and
assessed, and doesn't rely in the least on any consideration of 
trustworthiness or technical accumen. I'd suggest striking that sentence
in its entirity.

I also have concerns with the paragraph that begins with the statement:

#The WG also acknowledges that fast flux and similar techniques are merely 
#components in the larger issue of Internet fraud and abuse. The techniques 
#described in this report are only part of a vast and constantly evolving 
#toolkit for attackers: mitigating any one technique would not eliminate 
#Internet fraud and abuse. 

I can live with the preceding part of that paragraph, but the part that I
do *not* concur with is the sentence that then follows:

#Every attack that is enhanced by the use of one or more fast flux techniques 
#could be pursued without them, possibly at higher cost or effort for the 
#attacker.

That is a very defeatest and condescending sentence that implies that any
attempt at mitigating abusive use of fast flux is essentially pointless,
and that's misleading. Denying miscreants the ability to use fast flux
techniques would materially interfere with their illegal activities, and
dramatically increase the likelihood that they would be criminally 
prosecuted or subject to successful civil suits. Again, I would suggest
striking that sentence; the sentence which precedes that one adequately
captures the idea that fixing fast flux would not be a panacea.

Thanks for considering this feedback

Regards,

Joe