RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] 6.d

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kal Feher [mailto:kalman.feher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:51 PM
To: 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] 6.d


6.d (ICANN should consider as a first step rapid implementation of the
suggestions already called out within the report along with the
establishment of an Advisory Board on how to continually improve these
suggestions.)

The possible next steps section (starting line 2056) recommends a further
review which would satisfy the immediate desire for disseminating
suggestions. The text under "Explore other means to address the issue
instead of a Policy Development Process" (beginning Line 2083), suggests
investigating alternatives to the PDP. I think recommending an advisory
board specifically, for FF in particular, would not be overly useful. This
is especially the case given the overlap with other abuse areas. That is not
to say ongoing review of abuse policies should not occur, rather it should
not be carried out by a FF specific group.

Since there is already quite a lot of text in the report about both the
short comings of the PDP and recommendations for further investigation
(including with external bodies), I think this is answered already.



-- 
Kal Feher
Architect group
Melbourne IT Ltd
Angelholmsgatan 1C, Malmo, 21422
SWEDEN