[council] Fast Flux Hosting Motion - final results
Glen de Saint Géry
Glen at icann.org
Wed Sep 9 14:28:06 UTC 2009
The Fast Flux Hosting Motion before the GNSO Council on Thursday, 3 September 2009, which allowed for absentee voting, passed by 21 votes in favour, one abstention and five Council members did not vote.
Details of the voting and the text of the motion are found below:
Absentee voting closed on Saturday 6 September at 23:15 UTC.
One ballot was received four hours after the vote closed.
Voting Council members had 48 hours to object to the vote being considered in the final results.
No objections were put forward, thus the final results are as follows:
21 Votes in favour
Councillors present at the time of the vote:
Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Tony Holmes, Maggie Mansourkia, William Drake, Olga Cavalli (one vote each)
Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (two votes each)
Absentee ballots were received from Tony Holmes and Mary Wong (one vote each)
One Abstention - Avri Doria, Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA) stated the following reasons for abstaining
"Due to Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) concerns about the ethics of my decision to join the NCUC and about the propriety of my continuing to vote as an NCA, I abstain from all votes in the council until such time as the Board Structural Improvements Committee decides on the disposition of the CSG letter of concern."
Councillors who did not vote:
Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Cyril Chua, Carlos Souza, Terry Davis (one vote each)
Fast Flux Hosting Motion proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Tim Ruiz
On 30 May 2008, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP and chartered a Working Group, comprised of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, in collaboration with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use fast flux hosting;
Whereas the Working Group was asked to consider ten questions, specifically:
Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
Who would benefit from the cessation of the practice, and who would be harmed?
Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
What technical, e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate, and policy, e.g. changes to registry / registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?
What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation?
What are some of the best practices with regard to protection from fast flux?
Obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making;
Whereas the Working Group has faithfully executed the PDP, as stated in the By-laws, resulting in a Final Report delivered to the GNSO Council on 13 Aug 2009;
Whereas the Working Group did not make recommendations for new consensus policy, or changes to existing policy;
Whereas the Working Group has developed and broadly supports several recommendations, and outlined possible next steps;
Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations and the Final Report;
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
To extend our sincere thanks to the Working Group members, to the Chair James Bladel, to the Council Liaison Mike Rodenbaugh, and to two members of the ICANN Policy Staff, Marika Konings and Glen de Saint Géry, for their efforts in bringing this Working Group to a successful conclusion;
To encourage ongoing discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or Internet industry solutions to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux; and
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; and
To encourage 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
To encourage staff to examine the role that ICANN can play as a "best practices facilitator" within the community; and
To consider the inclusion of other stakeholders from both within and outside the ICANN community for any future Fast Flux policy development efforts; and
To ensure that successor PDPs on this subject, if any, address the charter definition issues identified in the Fast Flux Final Report.
To form a Drafting Team to work with support staff on developing a plan with set of priorities and schedule that can be reviewed and considered by the new Council as part of its work in developing the Council Policy Plan and Priorities for 2010.
Glen de Saint Géry
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
More information about the council