RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Updated version of draft initial report posted on wiki

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Mike:

 

I think my wording is factual and defensible.  Some TLDs, depending upon
their natures, do not face certain problems.  For example, can anyone
demonstrate when or how malicious parties have ever registered .MUSEUM or
.COOP or .EDU names to perpetrate fast-flux, spam, or phishing?  And
according to the research by WG members and others, most TLDs have no
fast-flux at all occurring in them.  

 

All best,

--Greg

 

  _____  

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:00 PM
To: gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Marika Konings'; 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Updated version of draft initial report
posted on wiki

 

Hi,

 

I'm ok with Greg's suggestions, except that I think "needs and" should be
removed from the last sentence.  I agree various registries have different
approaches, but they have (or ought to have) at least the same minimum
"needs" in dealing with domain abuse.

 

Sorry to miss the call today, I will try to catch up quickly, particularly
re Sec 5.10 if that is still open for revision?

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:04 PM
To: 'Marika Konings'; 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Updated version of draft initial report
posted on wiki

 

Thank you, Marika.

 

As discussed in the last call, I propose that lines 1085-1092 be replaced,
with the following:

"The Working Group would like to point out that a number of registries --
including generic, sponsored, and country code TLDs - currently have
policies that might serve as examples of how TLDs can take individual action
in the area of domain abuse.  Various TLDs are differently situated, and
have different needs and approaches in this area."

 

The rationales for the change are:  it is worth mentioning that there are
many registries with such policies, current text at 1085-1092 implies that
the Afilias solution is unique or suited to all TLDs' needs when it might
not be, and that the WG has generally avoided calling out individual
companies by name in its report.

 

All best,

--Greg

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:39 AM
To: Fast Flux Workgroup
Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Updated version of draft initial report posted
on wiki

 

Dear All,

An updated version of the fast flux report has been posted on the Wiki
(https://st.icann.org/pdp-wg-ff/index.cgi?fast_flux_pdp_wg) for review on
our next call coming Friday. Please note that I have started the overall
editing of the document, which explains the increased number of changes
tracked throughout the document. These edits are aimed to enhance
consistency and readability, please let me know if you spot any errors or
have suggestions for further improvements. 

The main outstanding items for the group to consider on the next call are
sections 5.4, 5.10 and chapter 6 (constituency statements and other view
points). 

With best regards,

Marika