ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Fast Flux Hosting

  • To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Fast Flux Hosting
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:29:14 +1000
  • In-reply-to: <004301c89b32$57e45130$07acf390$@com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <023a01c87963$eedd1a90$cc974fb0$@com> <004301c89b32$57e45130$07acf390$@com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ach5Y+rup0mKNAmFRLSXPSiF8APvlghyRphgAA9XgLA=
  • Thread-topic: [council] Fast Flux Hosting
Hello Mike,

> 
> Whereas, ICANN should consider whether and how it might 
> encourage registry
> operators and registrars to take steps that would help to 
> reduce the damage
> done by cybercriminals, by curtailing the effectiveness of 
> these fast flux
> hosting exploits.

Note you may want to use wording that is more generic.

E.g "how it might encourage DNS nameserver operators to take steps"

DNS nameserver operators currently include root server operators,
registries, registrars, telcos, ISPs, hosting companies, corporations,
small businesses and individuals.

As far as I know the majority of fast flux behaviour is not on
nameservers operated by registries or registrars (I could be wrong here
but this is just based on what I have seen - I haven't seen any stats).


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>