<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Folks,<br>
<br>
Here's the revised Recommendations langauge of sac025.pdf:<br>
<br>
<i>Fast flux hosting is a serious and mounting problem that can affect
name services in all <br>
TLDs. SSAC encourages ICANN, registries and registrars to consider the
practices <br>
mentioned in this Advisory, to establish best practices to mitigate
fast flux hosting, and to <br>
consider whether such practices should be addressed in future
agreements. <br>
<br>
</i>Please note the lack of "G" before "TLD" and the lack of
"accreditation" between "future" and "agreements".<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:47D2CE0C.9000903@nic-naa.net" type="cite"><br>
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.
<br>
<br>
The current text is: (Note that the "G" in "GTLD" will be removed in
the next version)
<br>
<br>
Fast flux hosting is a serious and mounting problem that affects
<br>
name services in all
<br>
GTLDs. SSAC encourages ICANN, registries and registrars to consider
<br>
the practices
<br>
mentioned in this Advisory, to establish best practices to mitigate
<br>
fast flux hosting, and to
<br>
consider incorporating such practices in future accreditation
<br>
agreements.
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
Suggestions from the professional association of sharks and lifetime
plus members of Club 666 sought.
<br>
<br>
Thanks in Advance,
<br>
Eric
<br>
<br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">All,
<br>
<br>
Please see the attached exchange of notes between myself and the SSAC's
Chair and Fellow.
<br>
<br>
This goes to the point Margie appears unwilling to acknowledge.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
Eric
<br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>
Subject:
<br>
Re: Clarification of scope of SSAC025 recommendations
<br>
From:
<br>
Dave Piscitello <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dave.piscitello@icann.org"><dave.piscitello@icann.org></a>
<br>
Date:
<br>
Fri, 7 Mar 2008 06:16:09 -0800
<br>
To:
<br>
Steve Crocker <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:steve@shinkuro.com"><steve@shinkuro.com></a>, Eric Brunner-Williams
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net"><ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net></a>
<br>
<br>
To:
<br>
Steve Crocker <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:steve@shinkuro.com"><steve@shinkuro.com></a>, Eric Brunner-Williams
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net"><ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net></a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Eric and Steve,
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
Thank you again,
<br>
<br>
Dave
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/7/08 7:05 AM, "Steve Crocker" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:steve@shinkuro.com"><steve@shinkuro.com></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
Eric,
<br>
<br>
Thanks. As Dave just replied, we'll look into this.
<br>
<br>
Steve
<br>
<br>
On Mar 5, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
<br>
<br>
> Steve,
<br>
>
<br>
> I think an editorial nit in the last para of ssac025 may be
the
<br>
> cause of a misunderstanding.
<br>
>
<br>
> The language I think is factually in error is the first
sentence of
<br>
> the Recommendations on the final page. There is a "G"
prefixing the
<br>
> string "TLD", which may lead some to think that if there is a
scope
<br>
> for any remedial policy, that the scope of such a policy is
within
<br>
> the GNSO's policy making council.
<br>
>
<br>
> A related nit may be the use of the term "accreditation" to
qualify
<br>
> "agreements" in the final line of the same paragraph. When
read
<br>
> with the encouragement by SSAC of "ICANN, registries and
<br>
> registrars", and the current use of "contractual" and "non-
<br>
> contractual" labels to distinguish between kinds of parties,
this
<br>
> line too suggests that if there are remedial policies, they
too are
<br>
> properly scoped within the GNSO's policy making council.
<br>
>
<br>
> I suggest removing the "G" prefix in the first line of the
<br>
> Recommendations section, unless of course, fast flux and
double
<br>
> flux are for reasons unknown to me, more difficult to exploit
using
<br>
> compromised assets in, or serving, the .gov, .mil, or any
iso3166
<br>
> code-point associated registry namespaces.
<br>
>
<br>
> While IANAL, substituting "operational" for "accreditation"
may
<br>
> improve the final sentence by placing the emphasis on best
<br>
> practices and operational art, rather than the existence of a
civil
<br>
> contract.
<br>
>
<br>
> Eric
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>