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

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dave,

That's how I interpreted comments 9.g-9.p.  The posters were more
weighing in and/or supporting what we already have in the Report than
criticizing or contributing new thoughts.  

Regards, P

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Piscitello
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:48 AM
To: James M. Bladel; Fast Flux Fast Flux
Subject: Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comment Analysis: Items 9q - 9v


James,

As I try to keep pace with the posted analyses and recommendations, I
see a
theme. Some comments are neither critical nor contributing, but
"weighing
in" with a dissenting opinion or approval. It might help to acknowledge
that
we are interpreting comments in this manner. For example, I would
consider
9r and 9s as "weighing in". The interim report addressed these points,
the
comment does not suggest that the existing text needs to be amplified or
revised, so we basically are nodding our heads and saying "thanks",
right?


On 5/13/09 3:58 PM  May 13, 2009, "James M. Bladel"
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>