RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Updated version - FF recommended next steps

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 If the report still says this:  "the WG believes that a collaboration of
outside organizations are better suited to address FF hosting"... Then it is
wrong.  We never agreed on that.  It should be deleted.

-Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
+1.415.738.8087
www.rodenbaugh.com



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Piscitello
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:52 AM
To: Marika Konings; Fast Flux Workgroup
Subject: Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Updated version - FF recommended next steps


The recommendations section says

" either within an ICANN context or as a collaboration of outside
organizations, are deemed better suited to address fast flux hosting"

What is meant by "ICANN context"?

Also, at the risk of appearing dense twice in 5 minutes, the paragraph seems
to say "the WG believes that a collaboration of outside organizations are
better suited to address FF hosting" and it can be construed that the WG is
suggesting that ICANN not participate. Is that what is intended?

Didn't outside organizations bring the issue of FF hosting to the ICANN
community because they believed it had a role in defeating FF hosting?

In situations where DNS is involved with FF hosting, what other
organizations are better suited to assist in mitigation and containment?

Perhaps the sentence intended to expand the participants and not exclude the
ICANN community from the collaborative effort?