Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content

GNSO Council Motion

Last Updated:

Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP to consider potential policy development to address fast flux hosting;

Note from the GNSO Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting:

In this context, the term “fast flux” refers to rapid and repeated changes to A and/or NS resource records in a DNS zone, which have the effect of rapidly changing the location (IP address) to which the domain name of an Internet host (A) or name server (NS) resolves.


To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use of fast flux hosting. The WG is also open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC.


The Working Group initially shall consider the following questions:

  • Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
  • Who would benefit from 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 available 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.

The Working Group shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Working Group members. The Working Group report also shall outline potential next steps for Council deliberation. These next steps may include further work items for the WG or policy recommendation for constituency and community comment and review and for council deliberation

Working Group processes:

While the development of guidelines for Working operations

, are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG:
  • The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority report.
  • In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
    • Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree
    • Strong support but significant opposition
    • Minority viewpoint
    • If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially :
      • Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.
      • If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response.
      • If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response.
      • If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council.
  • The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed.
  • If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines.
  • The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council.
  • All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for renewal.