[registrars] [Fwd: Re: Clarification of scope of SSAC025 recommendations]

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

Folks,

Here's the revised Recommendations langauge of sac025.pdf:

/Fast flux hosting is a serious and mounting problem that can affect 
name services in all
TLDs. SSAC encourages ICANN, registries and registrars to consider the 
practices
mentioned in this Advisory, to establish best practices to mitigate fast 
flux hosting, and to
consider whether such practices should be addressed in future agreements. 

/Please note the lack of "G" before "TLD" and the lack of 
"accreditation" between "future" and "agreements".

Cheers,
Eric

Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
> Following up, as the SSAC is now aware of Tim's point, we have our 
> choice for the language to replace the final clause of the final 
> sentence of Recommendations.
>
> The current text is: (Note that the "G" in "GTLD" will be removed in 
> the next version)
>
>    Fast flux hosting is a serious and mounting problem that affects
>    name services in all
>    GTLDs. SSAC encourages ICANN, registries and registrars to consider
>    the practices
>    mentioned in this Advisory, to establish best practices to mitigate
>    fast flux hosting, and to
>    consider incorporating such practices in future accreditation
>    agreements.
>
>
> As I hope all of you know, I'm not a lawyer, then again, neither were 
> the drafters of SSAC025.pdf, and the word "accreditation" was the nail 
> that stuck out, having recently done the RAA renewal loop for USA 
> Webhost.
>
> In my original note to Steve Crocker and Dave Piscitello I handwaved 
> "operational" for "accreditation", but that doesn't really get to the 
> possible absence of any "agreement", or the possibility of the 
> Pentagon or Burma (or any other non-gTLD operator) voluntarily 
> adopting some "best practices" specification.
>
> Suggestions from the professional association of sharks and lifetime 
> plus members of Club 666 sought.
>
> Thanks in Advance,
> Eric
>
>
> Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Please see the attached exchange of notes between myself and the 
>> SSAC's Chair and Fellow.
>>
>> This goes to the point Margie appears unwilling to acknowledge.
>>
>> In my reply to Dave Piscitello I pointed out that the operators of 
>> .MIL and .MY (the Pentagon and Burma, respectively), may not enter 
>> into an agreement with ICANN in the forseeable future, which is the 
>> point Tim notes, that the ccNSO has no authority to make consensus 
>> policy for ccTLDs.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject:
>> Re: Clarification of scope of SSAC025 recommendations
>> From:
>> Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello at icann.org>
>> Date:
>> Fri, 7 Mar 2008 06:16:09 -0800
>> To:
>> Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>, Eric Brunner-Williams 
>> <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
>>
>> To:
>> Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>, Eric Brunner-Williams 
>> <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
>>
>>
>> Eric and Steve,
>>
>> Thanks, Eric for a “good catch”. I think it’s correct to change GTLD 
>> to TLD; I also think it’s best to simply say “future agreements” 
>> without qualifying whether such agreements are operational, 
>> contractual, or for accreditation. If you concur, I’ll make these 
>> changes, update the version to 1.0, change the date to Mar 2008 and 
>> ask ICANN webmaster to substitute this for the current online version.
>>
>> Thank you again,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> On 3/7/08 7:05 AM, "Steve Crocker" <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>>
>>     Eric,
>>
>>     Thanks. As Dave just replied, we'll look into this.
>>
>>     Steve
>>
>>     On Mar 5, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>>
>>     > Steve,
>>     >
>>     > I think an editorial nit in the last para of ssac025 may be the
>>     > cause of a misunderstanding.
>>     >
>>     > The language I think is factually in error is the first 
>> sentence of
>>     > the Recommendations on the final page. There is a "G" prefixing 
>> the
>>     > string "TLD", which may lead some to think that if there is a 
>> scope
>>     > for any remedial policy, that the scope of such a policy is within
>>     > the GNSO's policy making council.
>>     >
>>     > A related nit may be the use of the term "accreditation" to 
>> qualify
>>     > "agreements" in the final line of the same paragraph. When read
>>     > with the encouragement by SSAC of "ICANN, registries and
>>     > registrars", and the current use of "contractual" and "non-
>>     > contractual" labels to distinguish between kinds of parties, this
>>     > line too suggests that if there are remedial policies, they too 
>> are
>>     > properly scoped within the GNSO's policy making council.
>>     >
>>     > I suggest removing the "G" prefix in the first line of the
>>     > Recommendations section, unless of course, fast flux and double
>>     > flux are for reasons unknown to me, more difficult to exploit 
>> using
>>     > compromised assets in, or serving, the .gov, .mil, or any iso3166
>>     > code-point associated registry namespaces.
>>     >
>>     > While IANAL, substituting "operational" for "accreditation" may
>>     > improve the final sentence by placing the emphasis on best
>>     > practices and operational art, rather than the existence of a 
>> civil
>>     > contract.
>>     >
>>     > Eric
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20080314/24a26a31/attachment.html>