ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

[council] Fast Flux motion

  • To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Fast Flux motion
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:17:01 -0700
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <C6C54651.5DE3%marika.konings@icann.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acosbddh7Tg55hQOUE6zlRW0jC8zRgAM1zL+
  • Thread-topic: Fast Flux motion

Dear All,

In order to inform your deliberations on the Fast Flux Final Report and the 
motion you have before you, I thought it might be helpful to share some 
background information on the deliberations of the FFWG and some points you 
might want to take into consideration when making a decision.

1) The report does not include any recommendations for new policy or changes to 
existing policies, but it does include 'recommended next steps'. When the group 
discussed these ideas for possible next steps, staff pointed out that all of 
these ideas would entail substantial further work by ICANN staff as well as the 
ICANN community as these ideas would need to be further worked out before being 
able to implement them. An attempt was therefore made to prioritize these in 
order to be able to present the GNSO Council with a top-two or three of ideas 
to pursue in the short term and leave the rest for a later point in time if 
those top-two/three ideas would not work out. Unfortunately, there was no clear 
consensus on such a top-two or three and as a result all of the ideas were 
included, albeit in order of importance.

2) As the resolve clauses are currently written in the proposed motion, there 
is little direction as to what is expected or what the next steps and expected 
timing is (e.g. 'encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding 
the development of best practices and / or policy changes to identify and 
mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux'). It might be helpful to discuss 
clearer direction on what the expected next step(s) are (e.g. Organise a 
workshop at next ICANN meeting to encourage discussions within the community 
regarding the development of best practices and / or policy changes to identify 
and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux) and whether the proposed actions in 
the resolve clauses should be undertaken at the same time, or whether there is 
a sequence that should be followed, again taking into account that almost all 
of these resolve clauses will require further work and discussion by ICANN 
Staff as well as the ICANN Community.

With best regards,

Marika



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