ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

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

  • To: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Fast Flux Hosting - re stated motions
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:10:01 -0400
  • Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <01a301c89fe2$eacce160$c066a420$@com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <20080411040845.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.f4143b6916.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <00aa01c89bc7$d26041e0$0202fea9@united.domain> <012101c89be2$e1b50430$a51f0c90$@com> <013001c89be8$4d2cf8d0$0202fea9@united.domain> <FA76116C-A18C-44DB-A3C0-9008E0D3D05E@psg.com> <008101c89f95$c8fdf850$e601a8c0@PSEVO> <01a301c89fe2$eacce160$c066a420$@com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Hi,

Thanks for your note. and please ignore the note I sent that crossed this one.

As it has been a council practice of late to delay a vote by a meeting if there was at least one constituency requesting more time for consultations, your proposal makes sense. I will replace the motion with the new motions, but mark them for discussion and not vote.

In terms of what happens if the PDP succeeds, but the Task force doesn't, the by-laws dictate that we then go into deliberation in the council. In the past, the assumption has been that we then create a Drafting Team that either drafts a charter for an open working group or drafts a motion that for council considerations. As we saw in the domain tasting case, the motion then, most probably should then go out for a round of constituency consideration and public comment. The by- laws do not require this, and the council could just vote, but given the trend toward building more consensus as opposed to voting before having spent time finding consensus, this does not seem advisable at this point.


a.

On 16 Apr 2008, at 12:57, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

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)









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