ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Fast Flux Hosting - re stated motions


Hi,

From the issues report:


The ICANN Bylaws state that:
“The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN: 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which 
are
a. domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and, 
c. protocol port and parameter numbers.
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. 3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions.”
Fast flux hosting involves the association of domain names with IP addresses through the operation of name servers, including the information about a delegated second- level domain that is maintained by registrars and by the registry for the TLD in which that SLD is registered. ICANN has only limited responsibility for policy development related to these technical functions. While items 1a and 3 above are general subjects that fall within the scope of ICANN’s mission statement, some policy options would not 
be within the scope of GNSO policy making.
My reading of this is that while it is possible that the PDP could arrive at policy recommendations that were out of scope, the discussion itself and hence the PDP itself would be within scope and thus only subject to the 33% threshold.
I have sent off a message to the general counsel's office seeking confirmation, or otherwise, of my reading. 

a.


On 16 Apr 2008, at 07:30, Tim Ruiz wrote:



To initiate a Policy Development Process uniquely on
the issues deemed in scope in the Issues report.
What are the issues deemed to be in scope? The report does not elaborate 
on what those are. The report does say the GC's opinion is that *some
aspects relating to the subject of fast flux hosting are within scope of 
the ICANN policy process* but does detail those aspects except to say
"as fast flux hosting activities concern gTLDs, the issue is within the 
scope of the GNSO to address.*
What the report is actually recommending is further research. We can do that without initiating a PDP on yet unknown *aspects* that might apply 
to gTLDs.
What our resolution asked for was *potential next steps for GNSO policy 
development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to
exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes.* The report
specifically states *the overall question of how to mitigate the use of 
fast flux hosting for cybercrime is broader than the GNSO policy
development process.* So what we asked for is clearly deemed out of
scope.
Any vote to initiate a valid PDP based on this issues report requires a 
Supermajority.

I don't understand the insistance on a PDP when we can initiate the
recommended research and fact-finding without one.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Fast Flux Hosting - re stated motions
From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 16, 2008 2:45 am
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



Avri,
you are right and the situation is no different to any PDP. I suggest
this:

MOTION 1
Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit
crime
and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals
rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade
detection and shutdown of their criminal website;

Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on
this
trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008:
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/
Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux 
hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal
activities,
discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and 
recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make
practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants,
ISPs,
registrars and registries,
Whereas, the GNSO resolved on March 6, 2008 to request an Issues Report 
from
ICANN Staff, to consider the SAC Advisory and outline potential next
steps
for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for 
criminals to exploit the NS via "fast flux" IP and/or nameserver
changes;

Whereas, the ICANN Staff has prepared an Issues Report dated March 25,
2008,
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux-
25mar08.pdf, recommending that the GNSO sponsor additional fact- finding 
and
research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux
`hosting,
and to provide data to assist policy development and illuminate
potential
policy options.;

Whereas, ICANN should consider whether and how it might encourage
registry
operators and registrars to take steps that would help to reduce the
damage
done by cybercriminals, by curtailing the effectiveness of these fast
flux
hosting exploits.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
To initiate a Policy Development Process uniquely on the issues deemed
in scope in the
Issues report.
(This will require a 33% vote)


MOTION 2
Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP on fast flux hosting;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
To form a Task Force 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 Task Force 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?
..How are registry operators involved in fast flux hosting activities?
..How are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities?
..How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
..How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
..What 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?

The Task Force shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a
report
discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed
by
the Task Force members. The Task Force report also shall outline
potential
next steps for Council deliberation.

(This will require a 50% vote)
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>