ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comment References, Interim Conclusions and Next Steps

  • To: <gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comment References, Interim Conclusions and Next Steps
  • From: "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:31:00 -0400

946-948 seems to say that anti-abuse responders use WPDRS to report
fast-flux domains for WHOIS violations, because WHOIS complaints are an
existing means of trying to get domains down.  And 946-948 does not
recommend to ICANN that an official ICANN reporting channel for FF be
created -- it says that a specific FF reporting channel would disambiguate
the issue from WHOIS.

I think the core issue is: is the WG asking ICANN for a tool for FFWF
research purposes (which is what I think was discussed in previous meetings,
and what I think is in the current draft)?  Or is the WG calling for ICANN
to create an official tool of some sort, possibly for enforcing policy?
WPDRS exists and is designed to enforce a contractual obligation.

This would be a good subject for upcoming meeting, to get more clarity into
the document.

All best,

-----Original Message-----
From: RL Vaughn [mailto:rl_vaughn@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:13 PM
To: joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comment References, Interim Conclusions and
Next Steps

Joe St Sauver wrote:
> This feels like the movie "ground hogs day," going over and over the 
> same material time after time after time. 
> I thought the draft report was it for most of the big arguments, subject
> only to the addition of a chapter discussing public comments, but I see
> that's not the case, and now we find ourselves re-hashing all those fun
> old arguments again. Whee!
> Like one of my kid's favorite cartoons says, I guess this is a case 
> where whoever has the greatest endurance prevails in some meetings.
> Ah well. On to the matter at hand:
> Greg mentioned:
> #2) Mike's edits at the end of the document change the meaning and purpose
> #a manner not agreed to by the WG.  James's draft accurately reflects the
> #WG's discussion of how it wanted a way for people to "submit potential
> #flux domains for consideration by the working group" as part of its
> #research.  Mike has changed the draft to state that the WG wants ICANN to
> #create a reporting system for "parties that might take action against
> #illegitimate or illegal activity."  Those are two very different things.
> #
> #Mike's change should be stricken.   The FFWG has never endorsed the idea
> #that ICANN create a WPDRS-like service for fast-flux, 
> Simply factually incorrect. Grab a copy of 
> and grep for WDPRS

Actually, one does not need to go back to 26 January.  The May 12 draft,
946-948 and following seem to endorse the call for a specialized reporting
channel following the WDPRS model.  That section also acknowledges the
provisioning of the WDPRS model represents an additional registrar cost.

That seems like a FFWG endorsement to me but I am very often wrong.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy