Re: [council] Fwd: Charter for Fast Flux PDP WG

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

The concept is one that i support and may have even been one of those  
to suggest it.  It is a concept that springs from looking at other  
organizations that have WG structures that are managed by council like  
bodies.  And from experience with WGs in other organizations.   
council, steering rups and committees seem to wrk best when there is a  
bit of seperation between the management of the Wg and the membership  
of the supervising council.
Part of the idea is also that the improvements are being done to pull  
more people into the process and to make the GSNO council more of a  
management group then the prime group actually doing the work.  In  
some sense, to me, this means that as much as possible we should be  
managing the process and I believe we can do that most objectively if  
we are not also directly managing the WGs.
The idea behind the liaison from the council is for there to be  
someone who, in addition to the (co)chairs, can provide a link with  
the management structure.
The guideline is not meant to be a prohibition, but a guideline.

In terms of having the group self select its chair, part of my concern  
is to make sure that WG have chairs who  know how to manage a WG to  
consensus and who we believe as a council  have the skills to deal  
with a group composed of a widespread cross-section of the community.   
If he council is to manage the process, it might make sense to have  
the council pick the chairs.    The WGs are a longer term constructs  
then the drafting teams we currently work with and will be composed of  
a variety of participants both from constituencies and from other  
parts of the community.  Personally I think the council should be in  
the position of picking chairs and should be able to replace a WG  
chair who is not working out.
In the long term, these are issues to be resolved as part of the GNSO  
"improvements" process.   Since this WG is being kicked off before the  
creation of GNSO guidelines for Wg, these were just ideas for this  
particular WG.
a.


On 28 May 2008, at 17:00, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> I am not sure when the conception arose about chairs and co-chairs  
> not being Council members, since every group formed since I've been  
> on Council would violate that conception.  Good concept particularly  
> for this PDP, but should not be deemed a rule.
> In any event, why would we not allow the WG to self-select their  
> chair and co-chair, subject to Council approval?  That also seems to  
> me the way things have been done to date.
> I can volunteer as Council liason since I will be participating on  
> this WG for the BC.
> Also, we should ensure that this WG can meet face to face in Paris,  
> if at all possible... since the next opportunity will not be til  
> Cairo and the WG ideally will be done with its work by then.
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Again, I sent the message from the wrong email address - I sent it  
> > from my university account.
> > I hope that people noticed the Fast Flux motion in the Agenda and  
> > have read through it for tomorrow's discussion.  Please read this  
> > note and think about the appointments mentioned in the note.
> > Thanks and apologies for the unintentional lateness of this notice.
> >
> > a.
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxx>
> > > Date: 22 May 2008 16:02:38 EDT
> > > To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Charter for Fast Flux PDP WG
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > At our last meeting, we voted on a motion to create a WG for the  
> > > purposes of proceeding with the work on the Fast Flux PDP.  A  
> > > proposed charter was due to the Council by today.  That charter  
> > > can be found on the Socialtext GNSO work space under [Fast Flux]   
> > > (aka https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?fast_flux).  I  
> > > have also included a copy of that charter below.
> > > Discussion and, if at all possible, a vote on this charter is  
> > > scheduled for our meeting of 29 May.  Prior discussion on the list  
> > > before then is encouraged so that any edits can be made early if  
> > > possible.
> > > Additionally, in reading through the charter you will note that  
> > > several roles are marked TBD.
> > > Specifically
> > >
> > > - a chair or co-chairs need to be appointed.  The conception we  
> > > have had of this group, and working groups in general, is that the  
> > > chair or co-chairs, should _not_ be council members.  I therefore  
> > > look to the council members to provide suitable candidates for us  
> > > to discuss.
> > > - a council liaison who will act as the point of contact between  
> > > the WG and the council as described in the charter.  In this case  
> > > the council will need to choose between whomever on the council  
> > > volunteers for this role.  Though I do believe that council  
> > > members should be able to participate in WGs in their individual  
> > > capacities without being chosen as the liaison to the WG.
> > > (During the council meeting, I will ask whether the group whether  
> > > we want to go off recording while we discuss these staffing  
> > > issues.  In the past we have decided to keep the call on the  
> > > public record even when discussing staff issues, and I am  
> > > personally comfortable with doing so again as long as we do so  
> > > deliberately.)
> > > I look forward to your feed back on this charter.  It is the first  
> > > approximation at some of the processes and procedures we may adopt  
> > > as part of the "improvements" process and is based on our  
> > > successful previous experiences with WGs.
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > a.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > PDP Working group on Fast Flux Issues
> > >
> > > hereas Council has decided to launch a PDP to consider potential  
> > > policy development to address fast flux hosting;
> > > The GNSO Council 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.
> > > Charter
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >   * 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 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 are some of the best practices available with regard to  
> > > protection from fast flux.
> > >   * What 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.
> > >   * 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.
> > >   * The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list  
> > > will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be  
> > > recorded and all recordings will be available to the public.
> > >   * 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.
> > > Milestone (dates to be updated if/when charter is approved)
> > >
> > >   * With assistance from Staff, template for constituency comments  
> > > due 40 days after WG is initiated
> > >   * Constituency statements due 70 days after WG is initiated
> > >
> > >   * Final report to be released to GNSO council and for public  
> > > comment at 90 days
> > > Working Group chair(s):
> > >
> > > TBD
> > > GNSO Council Liaison(s) to Working Group:
> > >
> > > TBD
> > > Staff Coordinator
> > >
> > > Liz Glasser
> > >
> > > Subject Matter References:
> > > - Issues report 25 March 2008
> > > - [SAC025]: Fast Flux Hosting and DNS (SAC025) (28 January 2008)
> > >
> > > Process References:
> > > - Tutorial on IETF WGs
> > > - Information on W3C working group processes
> > >
> > > Documents/Draft Documents Produced by the WG
> > > TBD