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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>]

Philip and Avri, I understand the process question and proposed remedy you
suggest.  I support Philip's restated motions, with some edits incorporated
below.  I consider all these changes as friendly amendments to my motion
made last week, with text of restated motions below.

It is not clear what would happen if we voted to initiate a PDP by 1/3 vote,
but failed to get 1/2 vote to launch a Task Force.  Also I have heard from a
couple Councilors that they would like more time to discuss this motion with
their Constituencies.  And NCUC has not offered reasoning as to why they
opposed the motion for an issues report or whether they oppose this motion.
While this process should move forward quickly, it would be best to have as
much consensus as possible at the outset.  Since we have a full agenda
tomorrow, perhaps we should just have a further discussion on these points
(without reiterating positions stated on the list) and hold a vote til our
next meeting.  Curious to hear others' thoughts on any of this.

Thanks,
Mike


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.;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To initiate a Policy Development Process to consider whether and how ICANN
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. 

(This will require a 33% vote)


MOTION 2
Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP to consider potential policy
development to address 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)