That's basically what the IPC constituency is saying. Personally, I think it would be good if ALAC had something to say to contribute to the discussion. That's the point of this note. BB -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:48 AM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fast flux update, part 1 Thanks Beau, Note that as ALAC is not a "constituency," the deadlines are only advisory. The problem this working group has had from the start is to come up with a working definition of "fast flux." If fast flux is defined as "criminal activity using compromised hosts and rapidly changing DNS records," its implications are different from what they would be if a purely technical definition encompassed both criminal and non-criminal uses of fast-changing hosting information (as is used, for example, by Akamai and similar high-uptime content-delivery network services). I had therefore proposed that it would be more useful to ask for and submit ALAC statements once the group could give a better definition of its subject matter. Thanks, --Wendy Brendler, Beau wrote:
Colleagues:
The Fast Flux working group is calling for constituency statements. The bad news is, they are in fact due now, though I would guess that delivering one by the middle of next week would not be problematic. The good news, if you can call it that, is that only two other constituencies have made statements -- the registries and intellectual
property. The IP statement is brief and is pasted directly below.
"The IPC appreciates very much the activity of the Fast Flux WG. We recognize that Fast Flux is a serious topic which so far has not been
widely discussed and analysed. The work of the Fast Flux WG enables members of the IPC to learn more about the issues involved. At the moment IPC does not have any specific comments or recommendations regarding Fast Flux and the most appropriate resolution of negative impacts connected with Fast Flux, nevertheless we hope to be able to comment in detail at a later stage of the work of the WG."
The registry statement is longer, and I have attached the PDF.
In part 2 of this message, which I will send later this afternoon, I will suggest what ALAC's statement should be. I do not believe it has to be as long as the registry constituency's statement, but should make the point that fast flux is used by criminals to do bad things that make the Internet an unpleasant experience for users. Probably there will be a critical points of disagreement: Those who argue for ICANN to have a limited scope will say that enforcement activities are
outside ICANN's scope (you can see this to some degree in the registry
statement, though they also acknowledge that fast flux's only real purpose is criminal activity).
Part 2 will come later this afternoon.
Beau Brendler
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********