AW: [registrars] WG: [council] Fast Flux DNS

["Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

If there is no argument made by this group why this could be a worthwhile
endeavor I will vote against the preparation of an issues report. I totally
agree with Ross that dealing with the Fast-Flux phenomenon should be subject
to best practice and not GNSO policy.

Best,

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Februar 2008 15:30
An: Thomas Keller
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [registrars] WG: [council] Fast Flux DNS

Ask them how this is in scope of the policy mandate of the GNSO.

The GNSO is purely concerned with gTLD policy, not DNS policy. If Mike and
his crew want to push this up the hill, they should first satisfy the GNSO
as to how this is a matter that the GNSO can be concerned with.

Creating limitations around the timing of updates to registration records is
a tricky matter that should not be dealt with hysterically.
I think this is more  a matter best left to a technical operations group
like NANOG, etc.

It would be a more fruitful investment for our constituency to pursue the
development of operational best practices in this area in conjunction with
folks that actually have clue like Gadi, NANOG ops, etc.

Letting the lawyers drive this bus is just plain dumb.

-ross

On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:38 AM, Thomas Keller wrote:

>
>
> now we finally reached the point where the BC wants to turn all of us
> into their private law enforcement squad. Looking forward to receive
> advise on how to react to this.
>
> Best,
>
> tom
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Mike Rodenbaugh
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2008 18:12
> An: 'Council GNSO'
> Betreff: [council] Fast Flux DNS
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I propose the following motion for Council consideration in our next
> meeting
> on March 7th, may I please have a 'second'?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
>
>
> Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to
> commit crime
> and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals
> rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade
> detection and shutdown of their criminal website;
>
> Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported
> on this
> trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008:
> http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/
>
> Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast
> flux
> hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal
> activities,
> discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity,
> and
> recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make
> practical mitigation methods universally available to all
> registrants, ISPs,
> registrars and registries,
>
> Whereas, the GNSO is likely an appropriate party to consider such
> policies
>
> The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
>
> ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to "fast
> flux" DNS
> changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council.  Specifically the
> Staff shall
> consider the SAC Advisory, and shall outline potential next steps
> for GNSO
> policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for
> criminals to
> exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>