Motion on the Fast Flux (FF) Hosting Policy Development Process (PDP) (held over from 13 August 2009)

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.

---

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 (insert URL) 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 ammended as: Replace under B in charter item 3 - replace amendments with topic
read "propose next steps for considering such topics"

---

Motion Requesting Issues report on vertical Integration and Registry/Registrar cross-ownership

Motion by: Mary Wong
Second:

Whereas, Recommendation 19 of the GNSO policy authorizing the new gTLD process states: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars;"

Whereas, opening up the market to many new TLD operators calls into question some of the assumptions on which the separation of registry and registrar functions is based;

Whereas, economic research commissioned by ICANN staff also suggests that changes might be justified;

Whereas, the new gTLD policies passed by the Council do not provide any policy guidance regarding the proper approach to cross ownership and vertical integration, but instead suggest that the status quo be left in place;

Resolved: the GNSO Council should initiate a policy development process on registry-registrar cross-ownership and the policies that should be applied to vertical integration or separation of gTLD registrars and registries and requests that an Issues Report be done on this question. This policy process should not delay or affect the progress of the new gTLD application process but should run in parallel.

---

Motion on requesting additional travel support for Seoul (held over from 13 August 2009)

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