From: IntoTheFuture@hotmail.com   
      
   Also the motivation for participating in this alliance is as follows:   
      
   Currently webhosters which host WikiLeaks websites are under-attack from   
   "wikileak attackers".   
      
   Currently webhosters choose top stop hosting WikiLeaks.   
      
   Consequence:   
      
   Webhoster now comes under attack from "wikileak defenders" which actually   
   also attack the webhoster for stopping wikileaks service/hosting.   
      
   So end result for webhoster is:   
      
   1. Host wikileaks and come under attack.   
   2. Remove wikileaks and come under attack again.   
      
   So end result is webhoster always comes under attack.   
      
   A better solution for "wikileak defenders" would be to start hosting wiki   
   leaks themselfes instead of attacking webhosters... but this is their   
   decision and not the webhoster decisions... so if they choose to keep   
   attacking webhosters then the webhoster is a bit screwed.   
      
   So for now it seems webhosters would probably be smart to not host any   
   wikileaks at all to prevent from coming under attack.   
      
   So all is well then ? Perhaps not...   
      
   If these kinds of attacks become more common their could be other reasons   
   for coming under attack...   
      
   Like hosting bank sites which cut wikileaks, or hosting other services which   
   somehow cut wikileaks.   
      
   So conclusion:   
      
   Webhosters could still come under attack indirectly by hosting other   
   companies websites.   
      
   What to do then ? Remove those services as well ?   
      
   Customers of those companies might get upset and start attacking webhoster   
   again... then webhoster screwed again.   
      
   Another perhaps better but also perhaps dangerous solution is to attack the   
   attackers.   
      
   Webhosters could also jointly form an attack group and attack the   
   attackers... by registering and sharing the ip's of the attacks.   
      
   However this would probably be a dangerous strategy... because "innocent"   
   victims/attacks/computers, so called "zombies" might also be part of the   
   attack.   
      
   Thus innocent people would become victims of webhoster's counter attack.   
      
   All these attacks could get out of hand... thus not adding more attacks   
   seems better.   
      
   Trying to make these attacks ineffective seems better, and thus the   
   motivation for this alliance idea.   
      
   The idea is basically: temporarely scale up resources to defend passively   
   against these attacks. (Increase bandwidth and processing power by   
   distributing the load).   
      
   Such an alliance would be good for customers of all webhosters involved,   
   their websites will remain operating and thus it's good for the webhosting   
   bussiness in total... especially those included in the alliance. It makes   
   sure that the web technology doesn't become some kind of "kiddy technology"   
   which could be dossed by "kids" in the eyes of the customers... otherwise   
   customers might some day not be interested in this technology anymore...   
   especially as financial stakes become higher. It also prevents customers   
   from trying to find their own solutions and stay with you the webhoster   
   bussiness because you took care of it yourselfes.   
      
   Bye,   
     Skybuck.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)