RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Final Report: Last Call for Edits
Ok, please take a look at this version (with track changes enabled). J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Final Report: Last Call for Edits From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, August 04, 2009 5:56 pm To: "'Fast Flux Fast Flux'" <gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx> Re #2, how about we clarify it this way: Whereas the Working Group did not make recommendations for new consensus policy, or changes to existing consensus policy, I'm OK with James' proposal to fix #3. Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:46 PM To: 'James M. Bladel'; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: 'Fast Flux Fast Flux' Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Final Report: Last Call for Edits I agree with James on #2 -- the language should remain as it is in the draft. To my recollection, the group never discussed the concept of mandating a reporting system via Consensus Policy. The document does not contain any recommendations for any consensus policy. All best, --Greg -----Original Message----- From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:16 PM To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: 'Fast Flux Fast Flux' Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Final Report: Last Call for Edits Mike: Good feedback, this is exactly what I was seeking. With respect to the clauses you mentioned: 1. Ok, I see your point. I am fine with deleting this entire whereas clause. 2. I don't think the FFDRS would qualify (yet) as new consensus policy, as we simply recommend that it be explored / developed. In this clause, I am merely stating that we did not modify any of the eight existing policies, nor did we create a new one. My preference would be to leave this clause in the motion. 3. If you prefer, we can strike the words: "for best practices", and end on "recommendations." J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Final Report: Last Call for Edits From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, August 04, 2009 3:49 pm To: "'Fast Flux Fast Flux'" <gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks James. I disagree with three Whereas clauses. They add nothing to the motion and can be misconstrued by uninformed readers: -- Whereas the Working Group, through its efforts, uncovered numerous challenges relating to the definition of fast flux hosting, and distinguishing characteristics between legitimate and illicit uses This is true, but unnecessary for the motion, and unduly highlights this difficulty rather than any of our successes. -- Whereas the Working Group was unable to reach consensus on recommendations for new consensus policy, or changes to existing GNSO policies; In fact, we did reach consensus on the notion that a Fast Flux Data Reporting System should be explored, and it very well might be implemented via Consensus Policy. -- The next clause says the "Group has developed and broadly supports recommendations for best practices." That is not true, as we haven't recommended any specific best practices. Thanks, 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 James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:31 AM To: Fast Flux Fast Flux Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Final Report: Last Call for Edits Team: With tomorrow's deadline approaching, please take a last moment to review the Draft Final Report (wiki link below) and Draft Council Motion (attached). https://st.icann.org/pdp-wg-ff/index.cgi The final document will be closed for edits as of end of day WEDNESDAY, 5 AUG 2009. Thank you, J. ________________________ James M. Bladel GoDaddy.com jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx Attachment:
Fast Flux Draft Motion v.3.doc
|