[council] FW: Proposed Amendments to the Fast Flux Motion
avri at psg.com
Thu Sep 3 18:39:23 UTC 2009
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
> and the WG is examining in detail the various agreements in the
> chain, I would clarify and simplify this as follows:
> The Registration Abuse Policy Working Group (RAPWG) should examine
> existing policy and/or agreements empower Registries and Registrars to
> mitigate illicit uses of Fast Flux;
More information about the council