[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Chapter 9 - Possible next steps

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Please provide your feedback on how this chapter (see current text below) 
should be modified and which, if any, recommendations have the consensus of the 
group.

================================

9            Possible Next Steps

Note: The Working Group would like to provide the following ideas for 
discussion and feedback during the public comment period. Please note that at 
this stage the Working Group has not reached consensus on any of the ideas 
below. The objective of the Working Group will be to review the input received 
during the public comment period and determine which, if any, recommendations 
receive the support of the Working Group for inclusion in the final report.

*  Redefine the issue and scope

In order to address some of the problems encountered by the Working Group to 
define the issue and answering the charter question, the possibility could be 
explored to redefine the issue and scope by developing a new charter. Another 
possible outcome of this process could be that further research and 
fact-finding is desirable before a new charter can be developed.

*  Explore the possibility to involve other stakeholders in the fast flux 
policy development process

As the use of fast flux is not limited to gTLDs and touches upon a number of 
other issues, the possibility could be explored to involve other ICANN entities 
such as the ccNSO, GAC, ASO and ALAC as well as including stakeholders external 
to ICANN (examples include: APWG, MAAWG, CCERT, IETF, FIRST, Artists Against 
419.org, StopBadware.org, Regulatory enforcement agencies such as the FTC, Law 
enforcement).

§     Explore other means to address the issue instead of a Policy Development 
Process

In its current form, the Policy Development Process might not be best suited to 
address the issue of fast flux. It could be explored whether there are other 
possibilities to deal with the issue, either within an ICANN context or outside.

*  Highlight which solutions / recommendations could be addressed by policy 
development, best practices and/or industry solutions

Additional work could be undertaken by the Working Group to review the 
solutions discussed in this report in further detail and indicate how these 
could be implemented; by policy development, best practices or industry 
solutions.

§ Consider whether registration abuse policy provisions could address fast flux 
by empowering registries / registrars to take down a domain name involved in 
fast flux

In light of other possible GNSO policy initiatives relating to registration 
abuse policy provisions, it could be explored whether a Policy Development 
Process in that area would in effect also address the use of fast flux and 
result in the rapid take-down or suspension of domain names involved in a fast 
flux attack by registrars and registries.

§   FFDRS (Fast Flux Data Reporting System)
Collection of data about fast flux is an integral part of the work of this 
group, and the foundation for future analysis of the fast flux issue. Currently 
there is no publicly available formal mechanism for members of the community to 
submit potential fast flux domains
for consideration by the working group. The Whois Data Problem Reporting 
Service (WDPRS), see http://wdprs.internic.net/ <http://wdprs.internic.net/> , 
is an excellent example of a existing public domain name-related data 
submission mechanism similar to what the Working Group might consider, albeit 
one that is focused on Whois data problems rather than the fast flux problem. 
Another example of a public cyber-security-related domain name problem 
submission portal is Phishtank, http://www.phishtank.com/ 
<http://www.phishtank.com/> .