FW: [council] Fast Flux motion
- To: "'GNSO Council'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: FW: [council] Fast Flux motion
- From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:04:41 -0700
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
- Reply-to: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acosbddh7Tg55hQOUE6zlRW0jC8zRgAM1zL+AAT5diAAAu02IA==
Thanks Marika for providing some further background, for those who haven't
been able to read the report or its executive summary.
I think you make good suggestion re the first recommendation, and that
workshop should include also the 3d recommendation re FF Data Reporting.
The 4th recommendation is just an expansion of the 1st, so can be included
if there is time (or anyway will be included to some extent via discussion
of the first). This should be scheduled so that others interested from the
SSAC, ccNSO, etc. can attend. I agree with Avri that this level of detail
need not go into the Council motion, but Staff can come back with a draft
implementation plan fairly soon, along these lines.
Do you agree that is a sensible way forward?
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 7:17 AM
To: GNSO Council
Subject: [council] Fast Flux motion
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,