Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Comment References, Interim Conclusions and Next Steps

[RL Vaughn <rl_vaughn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe St Sauver wrote:
> This feels like the movie "ground hogs day," going over and over the 
> same material time after time after time. 
> 
> I thought the draft report was it for most of the big arguments, subject
> only to the addition of a chapter discussing public comments, but I see
> that's not the case, and now we find ourselves re-hashing all those fun
> old arguments again. Whee!
> 
> Like one of my kid's favorite cartoons says, I guess this is a case 
> where whoever has the greatest endurance prevails in some meetings.
> 
> Ah well. On to the matter at hand:
> 
> Greg mentioned:
> 
> #2) Mike's edits at the end of the document change the meaning and purpose in
> #a manner not agreed to by the WG.  James's draft accurately reflects the
> #WG's discussion of how it wanted a way for people to "submit potential fast
> #flux domains for consideration by the working group" as part of its
> #research.  Mike has changed the draft to state that the WG wants ICANN to
> #create a reporting system for "parties that might take action against
> #illegitimate or illegal activity."  Those are two very different things.
> #
> #Mike's change should be stricken.   The FFWG has never endorsed the idea
> #that ICANN create a WPDRS-like service for fast-flux, 
> 
> Simply factually incorrect. Grab a copy of 
> gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/fast-flux-initial-report-26jan09.pdf
> and grep for WDPRS
> 

Actually, one does not need to go back to 26 January.  The May 12 draft, lines
946-948 and following seem to endorse the call for a specialized reporting
channel following the WDPRS model.  That section also acknowledges the
provisioning of the WDPRS model represents an additional registrar cost.

That seems like a FFWG endorsement to me but I am very often wrong.

<snip>