RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] action items from the July 11 call

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

All,

To address the concern articulated below, the first two questions of the 
charter now read (replaced "positions" with perspectives"):

1. Please identify the membership of your constituency who participated 
actively in the development of the perspective(s) set forth below.


2. Please describe the means by which your constituency arrived at the 
perspective(s) set forth below.

This has also been changed in the fast flux workspace: 
https://st.icann.org/pdp-wg-ff/index.cgi?first_round_constituency_input_template


Please let me know if this works or if you have further suggestions.  Thanks, 
Liz

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:50 PM
To: Fast Flux Workgroup
Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] action items from the July 11 call


hi all,

thanks for putting up with me learning Adobe Connect "on the fly"
during the meeting.

i recorded a few action items and wanted to get them to you while my
memory is still fresh.


we agreed to reword the Round-1 Constituency Template to soften it's
tone so that constituencies are clear that this round is really
seeking ideas and inputs, rather than decisions and positions.   Liz
volunteered to do this.  Liz, could we have that done by
tomorrow?  presuming that to be the case, we'll continue with the
current schedule -- which is to go out to constituencies now, and
come back with their thoughts by July 25th (not very long, so don't
dally on getting this out to your respective Constituencies).  here's
a link to the detailed schedule;

https://st.icann.org/pdp-wg-ff/index.cgi?tasks_obtain_constituency_statements_round_1




various folks volunteered to kick off email threads about the first 6
questions in our portfolio.  Dave has set a great example by already
getting one going.  if the rest of us could get these out over the
next day or two, it will provide more time for conversation.  here's
the list of assignments;

"Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed? " - Dave
"Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be
harmed? " - Dave
"Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux
hosting activities? If so, how? " - Greg
"Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? " - Eric
"How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting? " Mike (either
Rodenbaugh or O'Connor)
"How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting? " - Joe


we agreed that it would be very helpful to reach out and collect data
about this issue.  suggested dimensions included a) how many domains
are used, b) how long do they live, c) how many domain-registrants
are involved, etc.   we also agreed that it would be very useful to
identify gaps in the existing data.  Rod, Greg and Dave volunteered
to pursue this with APWG, CAUSE and other groups that collect this
kind of information.  why doesn't one of you start an email thread on
this -- and have a conversation about how long you need in order to
pull back this first-round information.  my hope would be that we
could have it fairly soon, as it seems very useful for subsequent
conversations.  could we shoot for a draft in time for the call next
week, or is that Too Hard?


we also agreed to reach out to "legitimate users" of Fast Flux to
determine their need for continuing the practice.  Wendy and Eric
agreed to reach out to people on the topic of circumventing
censorship, Mike and Mike will reach out to big data-center operators
(eg Yahoo, Thompson/Reuters).


that concludes my report,

m


voice: 651-647-6109
fax: 866-280-2356

web: www.haven2.com