[council] RE: Fast Flux Report - questions

Sat Apr 19 21:41:05 UTC 2008

I also like the expert panel approach that Chuck suggest below.  It  
will allow for greater flexibility and a more thorough investigation  
of the policy issues at stake before we jump to any particular  
conclusion.

Robin

On Apr 19, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>
> Chuck, I agree with that approach. In fact, the exchange of questions
> and the answers below exemplify why such an approach is necessary.
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Fast Flux Report - questions
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Date: Fri, April 18, 2008 2:52 pm
> To: "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster at icann.org>, "Rosette, Kristina"
> <krosette at cov.com>, <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the more I think about the
> issue, the more I am convinced that the best thing we could do as a
> Council before initiating a PDP is to develop very specific list of
> questions and form an expert panel that is tasked with trying to  
> answer
> the questions.  The expert panel could be formed from volunteers from
> the SSAC, the APWG, and constituencies that have expertise related to
> the use of fast flux.  Such a panel could be given a relatively short
> timeline, assuming they can complete the work in that timeline.  It is
> possible that, if the right experts are included, they might be  
> able to
> respond to the questions in a month or two.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
> council at gnso.icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:19 PM
> To: Rosette, Kristina; council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: [council] RE: Fast Flux Report - questions
>
>
>
>
> Kristina and all,
>
> Following are responses below from staff where we can.  I believe some
> of your questions highlight the need for further study (possibly in  
> more
> areas than we've identified in the report, as some of your questions
> suggest).
>
> Happy to try to answer further where we can, if you have more  
> questions.
>  I just want to note again too that given the short time frame to
> prepare the report, the breadth of sources we were able to draw upon
> were necessarily limited.  I really like your idea about noting  
> sources
> and including a bibliography when we prepare issues reports in the
> future, and I'm going to add this as a suggestion in our GNSO
> improvements process so that we capture this idea to consider in the
> development of a new policy development process.
>
> Liz
>
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- 
> council at gnso.icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:00 AM
> To: council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: [council] Fast Flux Report - questions
>
>
> All,
> Here are some initial questions/requests about the report.  I will
> forward additional questions soon.
> Page 1:  The report states that staff "consulted other appropriate and
> relevant sources of information".  In the interest of transparency, I
> would appreciate having those sources be identified.   As a general
> note, it may be helpful to all readers of the report if the issues
> reports included a bibliography or sources consulted section.
> LG -- staff considered the SAC Advisory (SAC 025) and I also consulted
> extensively with Lyman Chapin.  We referred to the email exchanges on
> the SSAC list during the period of time in which the SSAC folks were
> discussing fast flux and  preparing SAC 025, the presentations and
> transcripts from the SSAC workshops in Los Angeles
> (http://losangeles2007.icann.org/node/78)
> and Delhi (http://delhi.icann.org/node/97), and informally with a few
> other sources.
> Pages 6, 14:  One interpretation of the reference to "domains in  
> ccTLDs
> are targeted as well" is that there is no "lasting value" to  
> developing
> gTLD policy regarding any issue that occurs in both gTLDs and ccTLDs.
> Is this interpretation intended?
> LG  -- Chuck's comment was right.  There could be a benefit to
> coordinating with the ccNSO.  Not making a judgment on "no lasting
> value".
> Pages 6, 14:  Similarly, one interpretation of the reference to  
> "static
> rules through a policy development process might be quickly undermined
> by intrepid cybercriminals" is that there can be "no lasting value" to
> developing gTLD policy regarding any issue that results from or is
> associated with cybercriminals because they move more quickly than the
> PDP and, as interpreted by one IPC member, "are smarter than we are".
> Is this interpretation intended?
> LG - That is why we mention the importance of developing best  
> practices,
> which then can be enhanced and upgraded over time to keep up better  
> with
> new techniques developed to undermine existing deterrent techniques.
> Perhaps a policy outcome might point to the need to adopt rigorous  
> best
> practices and refresh on an ongoing basis.  But my understanding on  
> fast
> flux is that these best practices do not necessarily exist today,  
> so the
> question might be how to encourage their development in a  
> structured and
> focused way, as a necessary precursor to deciding how to encourage or
> require their widespread adoption.  Might the GNSO Council take on a
> convening role here?  Or encourage or direct in some other way?  In  
> this
> context, the inference of concern about "lasting value" of imposing a
> specific practice is intended.
> Page 8:  For how long and on what scale has proxy redirection been  
> used
> to maintain high availability and spread the network load?
> LG - We need to study this more.  The key question I was raising is,
> "are there valid uses that need to be considered, that could be
> undermined if certain deterrent steps were imposed?"  It is not clear
> from our cursory view how broadly this is used - seems also unlikely
> that there would be need for such constant and frequent fluxing in  
> this
> context, but we couldn't determine for sure either way.
> Page 9:  Did more than one person describe evasion of "black holing"
> "anecdotally as a possible 'legitimate use'" of fast flux?  Any  
> evidence
> or research to suggest that it actually happens?
> LG -- This is anecdotal and may only be one entity, another potential
> subject of further study.
> Page 10:  How likely is that fast flux hosting "could be significantly
> curtailed by changes in the way in which DNS registries and registrars
> currently operate"?
> LG - Would need to study further.
> Page 11:  Is it technically possible now for registries and registrars
> to act in two ways set forth in report?  Practically possible?  If so,
> do they?  If not, have reasons for not doing so been provided and, if
> so, what are they?
> LG - Would need to study further.
> (I have not included a scope clarification question because I  
> understand
> that it has already bee posed.)
> Many thanks.
> Kristina
>
>
>

IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20080419/79e9e8e4/attachment.html>