Thanks Marika for providing some further background, for those who haven't been able to read the report or its executive summary. I think you make good suggestion re the first recommendation, and that workshop should include also the 3d recommendation re FF Data Reporting. The 4th recommendation is just an expansion of the 1st, so can be included if there is time (or anyway will be included to some extent via discussion of the first). This should be scheduled so that others interested from the SSAC, ccNSO, etc. can attend. I agree with Avri that this level of detail need not go into the Council motion, but Staff can come back with a draft implementation plan fairly soon, along these lines. Do you agree that is a sensible way forward? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 7:17 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Fast Flux motion Dear All, In order to inform your deliberations on the Fast Flux Final Report and the motion you have before you, I thought it might be helpful to share some background information on the deliberations of the FFWG and some points you might want to take into consideration when making a decision. 1) The report does not include any recommendations for new policy or changes to existing policies, but it does include 'recommended next steps'. When the group discussed these ideas for possible next steps, staff pointed out that all of these ideas would entail substantial further work by ICANN staff as well as the ICANN community as these ideas would need to be further worked out before being able to implement them. An attempt was therefore made to prioritize these in order to be able to present the GNSO Council with a top-two or three of ideas to pursue in the short term and leave the rest for a later point in time if those top-two/three ideas would not work out. Unfortunately, there was no clear consensus on such a top-two or three and as a result all of the ideas were included, albeit in order of importance. 2) As the resolve clauses are currently written in the proposed motion, there is little direction as to what is expected or what the next steps and expected timing is (e.g. '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'). It might be helpful to discuss clearer direction on what the expected next step(s) are (e.g. Organise a workshop at next ICANN meeting to encourage discussions within the community regarding the development of best practices and / or policy changes to identify and mitigate the illicit uses of Fast Flux) and whether the proposed actions in the resolve clauses should be undertaken at the same time, or whether there is a sequence that should be followed, again taking into account that almost all of these resolve clauses will require further work and discussion by ICANN Staff as well as the ICANN Community. With best regards, Marika