ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Updated version - FF recommended next steps

  • To: "'Dave Piscitello'" <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Marika Konings'" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Fast Flux Workgroup'" <gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Updated version - FF recommended next steps
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:04:36 -0700

I do not think the WG intends to recommend that Council explore other means,
other than a PDP.  In fact we also recommend that proposed solutions
encompass other forms of DNS abuse, and so should be considered by the
RAP-WG, which surely could become a PDP.  And of course, a PDP certainly can
and should involve 'other stakeholders' outside of GNSO constituencies.


Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Piscitello
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:45 AM
To: Marika Konings; Fast Flux Workgroup
Subject: Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Updated version - FF recommended next steps

I'm having trouble understanding the recommendations section.

In the 1st paragraph, the report says

" the Working Group does recommend that the GNSO Council explore other means
to address fast flux hosting instead of a policy development process"

Later, it says

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

Perhaps I'm dense, but these seem contradictory.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy