Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this content. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Version History

Version 1 Current »

Motion on the Fast Flux (FF) Hosting Policy Development Process (PDP)

Proposed by: Mike Rodenbaugh
Seconded by:

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 policy changes to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux; and

To examine whether existing policy sufficiently empowers Registries and Registrars to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux, as a component of any future Registration Abuse PDP(s); and

To encourage staff, 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 / or policy work; 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.

Motion on requesting additional travel support for Seoul

Motion made by: Philip Sheppard

Seconded by:

Whereas:

The plan is to seat the new council in Seoul,

and current council members may no longer be council members at that time

Resolved:

Send the following letter:

Letter to Kevin Wilson,

I have been mandated by the GNSO council, by a vote of XX to YY, to request support not only for the members of the new bi-cameral council to be seated at Seoul, but also for those current council members who may not be continuing on the new council due to the reorganization.

The reason this request is being made is to provide continuity to the GNSO council at this time of restructuring, reorganization and 'improvement.'

Thank you
Avri Doria
for the GNSO Council

  • No labels