ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Council FF Hosting PDP Resolution

  • To: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Council FF Hosting PDP Resolution
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:58:50 -0700

Thank you, Marika and Glen.

And if the subsequent efforts require volunteers from this group, they
can participate individually.

As for the Fast Flux PDP WG, I believe we should consider ourselves


   -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Council FF Hosting PDP Resolution
 From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Mon, September 07, 2009 3:41 am
 To: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, 
 "gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx>
 Council FF Hosting PDP Resolution Dear All
 For your information, please find below the language of the resolution
that was adopted on the Fast Flux Hosting PDP.
 With best regards,
 Motion on the Fast Flux (FF) Hosting Policy Development Process (PDP) 
 Proposed by: Mike Rodenbaugh
 Seconded by: Tim Ruiz
 On 30 May 2008, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP and chartered a
Working Group, comprised of interested stakeholders and Constituency
representatives, in collaboration with knowledgeable individuals and
organizations, to develop potential policy options to curtail the
criminal use fast flux hosting;
 Whereas the Working Group was asked to consider ten questions,
 Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
 Who would benefit from the cessation of the practice, and who would be
 Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting
activities? If so, how?
 Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
 How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
 How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
 What technical, e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate,
and policy, e.g. changes to registry / registrar agreements or rules
governing permissible registrant behavior measures could be implemented
by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast
 What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing
limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars
and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate
fast flux hosting? What would be the impact of these limitations,
guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation?
 What are some of the best practices with regard to protection from fast
 Obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are
in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making;
 Whereas the Working Group has faithfully executed the PDP, as stated in
the By-laws, resulting in a Final Report delivered to the GNSO Council
on 13 Aug 2009;
 Whereas the Working Group did not make recommendations for new
consensus policy, or changes to existing policy;
 Whereas the Working Group has developed and broadly supports several
recommendations, and outlined possible next steps;
 Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these
recommendations and the Final Report;
 To extend our sincere thanks to the Working Group members, to the Chair
James Bladel, to the Council Liaison Mike Rodenbaugh, and to two members
of the ICANN Policy Staff, Marika Konings and Glen de Saint Géry, for
their efforts in bringing this Working Group to a successful conclusion;
 To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the
development of best practices and / or Internet industry solutions to
identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux; and
 The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine
whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including
consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of
Fast Flux; and
 To encourage interested stakeholders and subject matter experts to
analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect
data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future
discussions; and
 To encourage staff to examine the role that ICANN can play as a “best
practices facilitator” within the community; and
 To consider the inclusion of other stakeholders from both within and
outside the ICANN community for any future Fast Flux policy development
efforts; and
 To ensure that successor PDPs on this subject, if any, address the
charter definition issues identified in the Fast Flux Final Report.
 To form a Drafting Team to work with support staff on developing a plan
with set of priorities and schedule that can be reviewed and considered
by the new Council as part of its work in developing the Council Policy
Plan and Priorities for 2010.
 On 9/5/09 12:12 AM, "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 Dear All,
 Ahead of the official minutes the following resolutions were passed and
consensus was reached on the items below at the GNSO Council meeting on
Thursday, 3 September 2009.
 MP3 Recording of the GNSO Council meeting:
 Motion 1
 Motion on joint ALAC/GNSO Drafting team
 Proposed by Avri Doria
 Second: Mike Rodenbaugh
 On March 4 2009 (Resolution 20090304-2)the GNSO council committed to
"drafting a registrant rights charter" in cooperation the ALAC and
 As part of the same resolution (20090304-2) the GNSO council committed
to creating a "drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA
and to identify those on which further action may be desirable"
 The GNSO accepts the charter defined in
 with the deliverables and milestones as set out in that charter and
invites the ALAC to participate as a partner in this effort.
 The drafting team, at its next meeting, will pick a pair of
coordinators, one each from the At-Large Community and the GNSO.
 With charter amended as: Replace under Charter (B) item 3 - replace
'amendments'  with 'topics'
 to read "Propose next steps for considering such topics"
 The motion passed by voice vote.
 Councillors present at the time of the vote.
 Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Maggie
Mansourkia, William Drake, Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van
Gelder, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes, Olga Cavalli.
 One Abstention - Avri Doria, Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA)
 Avri Doria stated the following reasons for abstaining
 Due to Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) concerns about  the ethics of
my decision to join the NCUC and about the propriety of my continuing to
vote as an NCA, I abstain from all votes in the council until such time
as the Board Structural Improvements Committee decides on the
disposition of the CSG letter of concern.
 Motion 2
 Fast Flux Hosting motion.
 Absentee voting on the Fast Flux Hosting motion closes on Saturday, 5
September 2009 at 23:15 UTC. The motion and complete results will then
be published on the Council list.
 Other Decisions:
 1)  Council confirmed Michele Neylon's appointment as the Chair of the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies Part B Working Group (IRTP Part B WG)
 2)  Council confirmed the following GNSO co-chair and volunteers for
the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)
 Edmon Chung - gTLD Registries (co-chair)
 Terry Davis - Nominating Committee Appointee
 Stéphane van Gelder - Registrar
 Avri Doria - GNSO Council chair (Observer ex-officio)
 Chuck Gomes - GNSO Council vice-chair (Observer ex-officio)
 3)  The Motion requesting an Issues Report on Vertical Integration and
Registry/Registrar cross-ownership submitted by Mary Wong was tabled
until the next meeting.
 4)  The travel funding motion was withdrawn; any GNSO participants not
covered by the travel policy should work through their constituency or
stakeholder group to request funding as directed by Kevin Wilson.
 Please let me know if you have any questions.
 Thank you.
 Kind regards,
 Glen de Saint Géry
 GNSO Secretariat

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy