[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comment Analysis: Items 9q - 9v

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Team:
 
Since we are so close to the end, I wanted to close out this category.

 Here are my offered analysis / recommendations for Category 9, items
 q-v. For each recommendation, I posed the following questions:
 
 1. Has the proposed "next step" been addressed earlier in the report?
 
 2. If the commenter proposes additional study, is the hypothesis
 sufficiently defined and narrowed, such that any results will yield
 quantified data? Would the results present a significant opportunity to
 inform debate and form a basis for policy?
 
 So, with these in mind, here are the results:

 ******** 
9q: (Warner) Charging a fee for NS changes would not deter bad actors,
since they typically use stolen credit cards for payment

Recommendation: The concept of assigning a nominal fee to disrupt the
economics of FF are mentioned in two areas of the report, and the report
notes (in section 5.4) that these often involve stolen credit cards. 
Perhaps these two points could be more clearly connected in the language
on lines 279 and 1458.

9r & 9s: (RrC / Walton) The PDP is not the most appropriate tool to
address Fast Flux issues.  A narrower definition, supported by
sufficient quantifiable research, should be used.  FF should be part of
a broader study of issues that can be addressed by best practices,
industry solutions, and ICANN policy.

Recommendation: These recommendations are addressed at many points
within the report.

9t & 9u:  (Clayton) The WG does not possess the competency to propose
technical changes, and should focus on the process required to suspend a
domain in the DNS.  The role of ICANN, Registries and Registrars should
be studied, along with best practices and minimum standards of behavior.

Recommendation: The role of contracted parties are examined as part of
the charter questions.  Additionally, non-policy alternatives (as
industry solutions, best practices, etc.) are also discussed.


9s: (Virgo)  ICANN should convene a group of industry representatives
and victims to study the problem, and exchange how various elements of
registry/registrar services work in practice.  This group would report
back on any problems found within the next three months.

Recommendation:  This idea is discussed beginnin on line 2072, but the
report does not mention the inclusion of victims of FF.  Perhaps a small
change to this section could be made to encompass this idea.