FW: [council] FW: Proposed Amendments to the Fast Flux Motion
I agree with the RyC edits as friendly amendments, with one exception regarding the mandate to the RAP-WG. Since indemnification is an agreement, and the WG is examining in detail the various agreements in the registration chain, I would clarify and simplify this as follows: The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy and/or agreements empower Registries and Registrars to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux; I attach a redline reflecting this change as well. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:49 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] FW: Proposed Amendments to the Fast Flux Motion Importance: High On behalf of the RyC, I would like to propose the following amendments to Mike Rodenbaugh's Fast Flux motion. We hope they would be considered friendly but that is Mike's call. Note that the current wording of the motion is in italic font below and that I attached a red line version of the resolution part of the motion.. Chuck Gomes (A) "To 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" Make a friendly amendment to change to: "...the development of best practices and/or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate..." Reasons: * The WG did not recommend any policy changes specific to fast-flux. The issue of domain name abuse in general is a completely separate and more complicated matter -- see (B) below. * The phrase "Industry solutions" were included in the relevant Final Report's Recommendations section -- but was dropped in the Resolution language for some reason. See (C) below for why Internet industry is a preferred option. * The creation of non-binding best practices is a good idea; awareness-raising and education are needed and in keeping with the RyC position. Such efforts could include the ccNSO or other relevant bodies. * The RyC supports best practices and encourages industry solutions by the wider Internet community, rather than further policy change discussions. (B) "To examine whether existing policy sufficiently empowers Registries and Registrars to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux, as a component of any future Registration Abuse PDP(s)" Make friendly amendment so as to read: "The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine whether existing policy may empower Registries and Registrars, including consideration for adequate indemnification, to mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux." Reasons: * Make the referral explicit. The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) was specifically created to examine such abuse issues, and was an explicit outgrowth of the learning done in the FFWG. Core issues are now being examined in the RAPWG. * It is not agreed that GNSO policy can or should "empower" registries and registrars to mitigate illicit FF. * "of any future Registration Abuse PDP(s)" is poor wording. The GNSO has had several PDPs related to registration abuses -- such as domain tasting. FF is not related to any and all registration issues. * The current wording of the resolution implies that registries should be responsible for mitigating fast-flux (and by extension other abusive uses of domain names). (C) "To encourage staff, interested stakeholders, and subject matter experts to analyze the feasibility of a Fast Flux Data Reporting System to collect data on the prevalence of illicit use, as a tool to inform future discussions and/or policy work" Suggest friendly amendment to remove the words "staff" and "and/or policy work." ICANN should not devote resources to the creation or maintenance of a fast-flux reporting tool. Reasons: * FF is an issue that ICANN is not well-suited to deal with on a practical level, FF is really outside of GNSO policy-making scope, and FF is not a core DNS security and stability issue within ICANN's mission. * Therefore spending ICANN funds is not relevant. * The Final Report points out that similar security issues are dealt with by interested parties outside of ICANN -- such as for phishing (APWG and PhishTank), botnets (ShadowServer and Conficker WG), and spam (Spamhaus and the SURBLs). * NOTE: Discussion about a "Fast Flux Data Reporting System" should be clear -- participation in such a tool was never discussed as something that should be mandated by policy. A Fast Flux Data Reporting System should not be equated with ICANN's WHOIS WDPRS reporting tool [http://wdprs.internic.net/ ] -- the WDPRS is a compliance tool related to existing contractual obligations that registrars and registrants must adhere to.
Fast Flux Motion RyC Amendments 2 Sep 09 (mxr redline).doc