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

Mike Rodenbaugh icann at rodenbaugh.com
Thu Sep 3 18:04:41 UTC 2009

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.


Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 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..."  
* 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."
* 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.  
* 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Fast Flux Motion RyC Amendments 2 Sep 09 (mxr redline).doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29184 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090903/6e1e62d6/FastFluxMotionRyCAmendments2Sep09mxrredline.doc>

More information about the council mailing list