RE: [council] RE: Fast Flux Report - questions
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@verisign.com> Date: Fri, April 18, 2008 2:52 pm To: "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@icann.org>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, <council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:19 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:00 AM To: council@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
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@verisign.com> Date: Fri, April 18, 2008 2:52 pm To: "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@icann.org>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, <council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:19 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:00 AM To: council@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@ipjustice.org
I agree. tom _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Robin Gross Gesendet: Samstag, 19. April 2008 23:41 An: Council GNSO Betreff: Re: [council] RE: Fast Flux Report - questions 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@verisign.com> Date: Fri, April 18, 2008 2:52 pm To: "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@icann.org>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, <council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:19 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:00 AM To: council@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@ipjustice.org
participants (3)
-
Robin Gross -
Thomas Keller -
Tim Ruiz