Hi, Again, I sent the message from the wrong email address - I sent it from my university account. I hope that people noticed the Fast Flux motion in the Agenda and have read through it for tomorrow's discussion. Please read this note and think about the appointments mentioned in the note. Thanks and apologies for the unintentional lateness of this notice. a. Begin forwarded message:
From: Avri Doria <avri@ltu.se> Date: 22 May 2008 16:02:38 EDT To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Charter for Fast Flux PDP WG
Hi,
At our last meeting, we voted on a motion to create a WG for the purposes of proceeding with the work on the Fast Flux PDP. A proposed charter was due to the Council by today. That charter can be found on the Socialtext GNSO work space under [Fast Flux] (aka https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?fast_flux) . I have also included a copy of that charter below.
Discussion and, if at all possible, a vote on this charter is scheduled for our meeting of 29 May. Prior discussion on the list before then is encouraged so that any edits can be made early if possible.
Additionally, in reading through the charter you will note that several roles are marked TBD.
Specifically
- a chair or co-chairs need to be appointed. The conception we have had of this group, and working groups in general, is that the chair or co-chairs, should _not_ be council members. I therefore look to the council members to provide suitable candidates for us to discuss.
- a council liaison who will act as the point of contact between the WG and the council as described in the charter. In this case the council will need to choose between whomever on the council volunteers for this role. Though I do believe that council members should be able to participate in WGs in their individual capacities without being chosen as the liaison to the WG.
(During the council meeting, I will ask whether the group whether we want to go off recording while we discuss these staffing issues. In the past we have decided to keep the call on the public record even when discussing staff issues, and I am personally comfortable with doing so again as long as we do so deliberately.)
I look forward to your feed back on this charter. It is the first approximation at some of the processes and procedures we may adopt as part of the "improvements" process and is based on our successful previous experiences with WGs.
thanks
a.
---
PDP Working group on Fast Flux Issues
hereas Council has decided to launch a PDP to consider potential policy development to address fast flux hosting;
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to curtail the criminal use of fast flux hosting. The WG is also open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committees whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC. Charter
The Working Group initially shall consider the following questions:
* Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
* Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed?
* How are registry operators involved in fast flux hosting activities?
* How are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities?
* 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 are some of the best practices available with regard to protection from fast flux.
* What areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making?
The Working Group shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Working Group members. The Working Group report also shall outline potential next steps for Council deliberation. These next steps may include further work items for the WG or policy recommendation for constituency and community comment and review and for council deliberation Working Group processes:
While the development of guidelines for Working operations, are still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG:
* The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report.
* In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: * Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree * Strong support but significant opposition * Minority viewpoint * If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these steps sequentially : * Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error. * If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the council liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response. * If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response. * If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement of the appeal to the board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the council. * The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed. * The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public.
* If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines.
* The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly to the council.
* All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for renewal.
Milestone (dates to be updated if/when charter is approved)
* With assistance from Staff, template for constituency comments due 40 days after WG is initiated
* Constituency statements due 70 days after WG is initiated
* Final report to be released to GNSO council and for public comment at 90 days
Working Group chair(s):
TBD GNSO Council Liaison(s) to Working Group:
TBD Staff Coordinator
Liz Glasser
Subject Matter References: - Issues report 25 March 2008 - [SAC025]: Fast Flux Hosting and DNS (SAC025) (28 January 2008)
Process References: - Tutorial on IETF WGs - Information on W3C working group processes
Documents/Draft Documents Produced by the WG TBD