[council] Issues Report re Abuse Policies -- request for clarification from Counsel

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Thu Nov 20 17:03:11 UTC 2008


On 19 Nov 2008, at 18:32, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> In my opinion, initiating a PDP on Domain Name Abuse would have a  
> similar result as we have seen in the Fast Flux PDP.  I am sure you  
> read the comments of one BC rep and former chair of that WG.  I  
> personally think he makes a strong case that we prematurely intiated  
> a PDP for fast flux.  I believe the Fast Flux PDP WG has done some  
> very good work so I do not want to minimize that, but I believe we  
> would have been more effective if we tackled the problem more  
> deliberately instead of rushing into a PDP.

Speaking as the interim chair of the Fast Flux PDP working group, I  
must state that I disagreed with much of the analysis given by the  
previous chair but that will be excellent and welcome fodder for  
another discussion at another time.

Without taking a position on whether we are ready to initiate a PDP on  
Abuse Policies or whether it is in scope for the Council to discuss  
policy related to domain name abuse I wanted to make a process point  
on the evolving nature of PDP WGs.

I believe that it is in principle ok for a PDP to include as its first  
step the research phase.  It would make sense to me personally and I  
believe it would be within the by-laws as we are currently  
interpreting them, for an initial charter for a PDP working group  
(assuming a PDP vote, which is required by the by-laws, has prevailed  
according to the by-law threshholds) to include only the research  
issues with a checkpoint by the council after that research was done.

The point I am making is that while the by-laws mandate that a PDP  
must be voted on and must occur if approved by the required  
thresholds, they do not require the creation of policy, only a policy  
recommendation.  I can conceive of a PDP WG doing the research in  
collaboration with staff and experts, coming back to the council with  
the results of that research and the council deciding that based on  
the information gained no new policy was required - this would be a  
policy recommendation.  On the other had, the council could at that  
point decide that some new policy was required and could update the  
charter with the specificity needed to create tight policy  

This is all stuff that must be discussed in the PPSC, but in the  
meantime, I believe that the Fast Flux PDP WG  is not a bad example of  
a path that can be followed, though we have to be more careful with  
the crafting of the charter, with creating checkpoints for the council  
in regard to that charter and in making clear that as the WG begins  
its work and realizes that a change in the charter is required, the  
chair/liaison know that they are empowered to come to the council and  
renegotiate content and timing of the charter as required.


More information about the council mailing list