RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Updated version - FF recommended next steps
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 Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----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.