ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] FW: Proposed Amendments to the Fast Flux Motion

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposed Amendments to the Fast Flux Motion
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:39:23 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <3F23E01F6F7E47D6AC59B8D3C2B329C9@HPLAPTOP>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <3F23E01F6F7E47D6AC59B8D3C2B329C9@HPLAPTOP>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Wouldn't this be something that would need to worked out with the RAP WG in a WG charter amendment? I tend to see changing the charter as a negotiation process between the council and the WG.



On 3 Sep 2009, at 20:04, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

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;

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