RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Text following line 572

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Speaking as one responsible for the Afilias (one "f") policy:

Afilias is a private actor that is acting within a set of contractual
obligations and limitations.  Not all parties are similarly situated.  Also,
Afilias acted in this fashion in a volunteer fashion, and proposed a terms
of service that it was right for it.  However, there is not a
one-size-fits-all solution that should be forced upon parties.  One thing
some parties are concerned about is being forced by ICANN to do things in a
certain way.  ICANN is not in a good position to dictate policies,
procedures, and associated costs of this nature.  

All best,
--Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe St Sauver
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:04 PM
To: gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Text following line 572


Lines 567-572 on PDF page 24 reads:

   "b. Misconceptions about the scope of a PDP and remit of ICANN
   
   As mentioned under point a, one could consider that a PDP on fast
   flux was premature as there was not sufficient information available
   to inform the debate or agreement on the exact scope and nature
   of fast flux. In addition, neither the GNSO Council nor the charter
   identified what the objective of a potential recommendation on fast 
   flux should be."

Following that text, I would request that we add a pointer to the 
Affilias Abuse Funnel Request document mentioned by Greg Aaron at 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00285.html as an
example of how at least one TLD has successfully addressed *precisely* 
the issue our WG faced. 

Somehow in just two pages Affilias managed to (a) explain why abusive
use of domain names is an important issue, (b) define fast flux (see pp. 2
of
www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/afilias-abuse-funnel-request-rev-03jul08.pd
f )
and (c) forbid it unless usage has received prior permission, and (d) 
they even described what can/should be done (see the last two paragraphs of 
that page). Seems like the whole package to me.

If nothing else, one possible solution would be to adopt the Affilias
abuse funnel request as a foundation or model for moving forward with 
the gTLD fastflux discussion.

Regards,

Joe

Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own