RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg,

It is a conceivable option.  Domain registrants could be notified of
limitations and opportunity to request permission, by their registrar at
time of registration, and if they violate rules then could suffer domain
suspension until they comply.  

I am only floating this as a potential option, particularly if abuse of fast
flux exploits, and resulting harm, continues to grow unabated.  I simply do
not want our Report to foreclose the possibility, because we have not agreed
as a WG that it should be eliminated.

Thanks,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9


Dear Mike:

So you are suggesting that any Internet user in the world who wanted to use
a TTL below a certain threshold would need to go to some authority to get
permission?

All best,
--Greg




-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 1:10 PM
To: 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9


Again I disagree, as existing legitimate uses could be whitelisted, with no
impediment whatsoever to their existing deployment.

-Mike 

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:46 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Diaz, Paul'; 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Cc: 'Marika Konings'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9

I suggest the statement read:

"Besides their technical or practical limitations, such limitations,
guidelines, or restrictions would impede current legitimate "volatile
networks" that use short TTLs and frequent DNS record updates to deliver
their beneficial products and services."

I have removed "likely" because limiting TTLs would definitely impede
currently deployed legitimate services.  

All best,
--Greg




-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:00 AM
To: 'Diaz, Paul'; 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Cc: 'Marika Konings'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9


Hi,

I disagree that limits on TTL would impede innovation of volatile networks.
We have no indication of that from any source, as far as I recall.  I think
it is better to leave the first sentence, and expand upon it, rather than
introduce a red herring argument.  

I suggest we delete that last sentence, and instead add a clause up front:
"As explained in section 5.8, none of the possible options..."

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
+1.415.738.8087
www.rodenbaugh.com



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Diaz, Paul
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:07 AM
To: Fast Flux Workgroup
Cc: Marika Konings
Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9


Here is proposed text for Section 5.9 (which also would appear in the
Executive Summary re: Charter Question #9.  Please share edits/comments to
the list for further discussion/approval at the next FF WG call on June 3.


Issue
What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions
to product and service innovation?


Response
None of the possible options noted above were deemed appropriate or
viable.  Besides their technical or practical limitations, such
limitations, guidelines or restrictions likely would impede the
innovation of legitimate "volatile networks" that use short TTLs and
frequent DNS record updates to deliver their beneficial products and
services.