[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] FW: Fast Flux Hosting Motion - final results

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Working Group Members,

FYI

The Fast Flux Hosting Motion before the GNSO Council on Thursday, 3 September 
2009, which allowed for absentee voting, passed by 21 votes in favour, one 
abstention and five Council members did not vote.

Details of the voting and the text of the motion are found below:

Absentee voting closed on Saturday 6 September at 23:15 UTC.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07325.html

One ballot was received four hours after the vote closed.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07327.html

Voting Council members had 48 hours to object to the vote being considered in 
the final results.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07329.html 

No objections were put forward, thus the final results are as follows:

21 Votes in favour 

Councillors present at the time of the vote:

Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Maggie 
Mansourkia, William Drake, Olga Cavalli (one vote each)
Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon 
Chung, Chuck Gomes (two votes each)
 
Absentee ballots were received from Tony Holmes and Mary Wong (one vote each)

One Abstention - Avri Doria, Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) 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."

Councillors who did not vote:
Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Cyril Chua, Carlos Souza, Terry Davis (one vote each)

Fast Flux Hosting Motion proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Tim Ruiz

Whereas:
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, specifically:

Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed? 

Who would benefit from the cessation of the practice, and who would be harmed? 

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 flux?
 
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 flux? 

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;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

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.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org