Re: [ga] Initial Report of the GNSO Fast Flux Hosting Working Group

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric Brunner-Williams' contribution to the WG is worth reading.

Some excerpts:


> Not only should we be unwilling to accept the consequences of 
> non-registrars-non-registries attempting
> to socialize their costs to registrars and registries, we should be 
> unwilling to accept the
> consequences of sub-cost registrars attempting to socialize costs to 
> actual-cost registrars.
> The RAA does not require us to share the fate of the credit card industry, 
> or to adopt their fraud risk,
> or place ourselves in the position of being likely to be the target of a 
> take-down attempt or domain
> hijacking to benefit businesses which elected to share the fate of the 
> credit card industry and adopt
> their fraud risk. We're not unaware of the problem, or indi..erent to it, 
> but socializing the cost of theft
> from some victims, who accepted the risk, to more victims who did not, and 
> have no share in the
> benefits from that involuntarily shared risk, doesn't solve the problem, 
> it merely repeats the theft.
Unintended Consequences
There have been unintended consequences.
We need to reconsider the institutional role of "security" We can accept 
that ICANN's "security"
agent may be compromised, and is in the present. Do we leave it unminded, 
pretend it didn't
happen, and won't happen again, or do we take it as a given and 
institutionalize corruption, parcel
out the "security" budget to the constituencies and get on with "security" 
being both subjective and
created by compromise? The capture of the "security and stability" blob in 
the org chart by the
"identity theft" mob is a non-trivial event. The upcoming SSAC Review is 
the appropriate venue to
pursue the question of the SSAC's performance, structure, and institutional 
responsibilities.


-joop-