Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Council FF Hosting PDP Resolution
Hi,And my personal thanks to you all. It was a fine piece of work you all produced.
a. On 8 Sep 2009, at 13:58, James M. Bladel wrote:
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 Adjourned. J. -------- 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, Marika Motion on the Fast Flux (FF) Hosting Policy Development Process (PDP) 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 hostingactivities? 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 rulesgoverning permissible registrant behavior measures could be implementedby 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 fastflux? 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 inthe 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 membersof the ICANN Policy Staff, Marika Konings and Glen de Saint Géry, fortheir 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 examinewhether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses ofFast Flux; and To encourage interested stakeholders and subject matter experts toanalyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collectdata 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 andoutside the ICANN community for any future Fast Flux policy developmentefforts; 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 PolicyPlan and Priorities for 2010. On 9/5/09 12:12 AM, "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: FYI 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 onThursday, 3 September 2009. MP3 Recording of the GNSO Council meeting: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090903.mp3 Motion 1 ========= Motion on joint ALAC/GNSO Drafting team Proposed by Avri Doria Second: Mike Rodenbaugh Whereas 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" Resolved The GNSO accepts the charter defined in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/raa-drafting-team-charter-03sep09-en.pdf 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, MaggieMansourkia, 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 abstainingDue 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 timeas 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 theInter-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 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://gnso.icann.org