Tim and Tom, I appreciate your thoughts on this. You seem to raise only procedural objections. We ought to start the process of policy development ASAP, because this is a serious problem causing lots of harm. So let's get the procedural issues out of the way, and move forward. It seems we agree that the first step in the process is to put together a more complete factual record, in response to the questions posed by Staff in the Issues Report. In order to do that most comprehensively and effectively, we will need broad participation from GNSO constituencies and from other interests (private and public law enforcement, in particular). In order to best secure that participation, there ought to be a formal PDP underway so that people know their work is more likely to be meaningful and therefore they are more likely to participate. The terms of reference for this PDP have been narrowly tailored to remain in scope of the GNSO. Any suggested recommendations of the Task Force can then be reviewed to ensure they are in scope, before they are debated or deliberated by the Council in the next phase of the PDP. While it would be wonderful to have unanimous consensus to kick off a PDP, it is not necessary and is unrealistic with this issue as with so many others. Registrars nevertheless ought to participate in a Task Force, and hopefully they will come to understand that nobody aims to impose undue burdens on them with respect to this issue. Rather, the PDP would get a broad and knowledgeable group together to discuss the factual realities, and brainstorm about what reasonably might be done to potentially address the problem at the registry and registrar levels of the DNS. It may turn out that there is nothing that ought to be done, but at least GNSO will have taken a formal look at this (at SSAC's request), and come to that reasonable conclusion as quickly as it reasonably could. I fear that your alternative proposal would only amount in excessive delay with little or no upside benefit. We tried that approach with domain tasting. That was not necessary as the 'ad hoc' factfinding could have been the first step in a formal PDP. Had it been, the issue most likely would have resolved the same way in the Council, but several months more quickly. Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 4:33 AM To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: AW: [council] Fast Flux Hosting Mike, I have to agree with Tim, we do not need a PDP to do the fact finding you suggest in your motion. I personally would like to follow the staff recommendation for further research. Once we have a better picture of what the actual scope of the PDP could be we are still free to start one. Starting it now with only a few people supporting it might not be very productive in terms of ever getting by a 2/3rd majority and hence consensus policy. Best, tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz Gesendet: Freitag, 11. April 2008 13:09 An: 'Council GNSO' Betreff: RE: [council] Fast Flux Hosting

Mike,

The requirement to vote within 15 days can be dealt with by adding something like *whereas based on the Staff's recommendation the GNSO Council has chosen not to initiate a PDP at this time* or something like that.

To initiate a PDP would be ignoring the Staff's recommendations that we specifically asked for. The motion said:

*ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to 'fast flux' DNS changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council. Specifically the Staff shall consider the SAC Advisory [SAC 025], and shall outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the DNS via 'fast flux' IP or nameserver changes.*

In the report, over and over again, the Staff recommends further study. And the GC specifically states that *the overall question of how to mitigate the use of fast flux hosting for cybercrime is broader than the GNSO policy development process.* So the very issue the motion requested the report on is not within scope.

Philip suggests we make the PDP about those *some aspects relating to the subject of fast flux hosting* that are within scope. What are they? The report does not make it clear what they are. The furter research and study that the report recommends is what is needed in order to identify them.

When we initiate a PDP we start a clock ticking. If we initiate a PDP on yet unknown *aspects* with the idea that identifying them is the first step, we are guaranteeing that we won't stay within the PDP timeline. I don't see the point in that.

Tim

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Fast Flux Hosting From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, April 10, 2008 7:24 pm To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Tim,

I noted the Staff's recommendation and included it in a 'whereas' clause. Yet there appears no reason to delay a PDP for factfinding, since a PDP can begin with that work. Of course, this is a very time-sensitive issue as hundreds of phish attacks are launched every week, increasingly many of them using fast flux techniques.

I also noted the comments apparently from ICANN Counsel with respect to scope. It seems that after this next step, Counsel may wish to give an opinion as to the outcome up to that date, so that GNSO Council does not waste time deliberating potential recommendations that are out of its scope. However, I believe my motion does not raise issues outside the scope of the GNSO.

The bylaws require us to vote whether to initiate a PDP, within 15 days of the Issues Report. Only 1/3 of present Councilors needs to vote in favor of initiating a PDP after an Issues Report.

I am curious to hear others' thoughts on my motion, these issues, and any reasoning as to why we should delay or forego initiation of a PDP, before deciding whether to accept your friendly amendment.

Thanks, Mike

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:42 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Fast Flux Hosting

Mike,

Why does a PDP need to be initiated to gather the information you suggest? In fact, the Staff report specifically recommends *that the GNSO sponsor further fact-finding and research* before considering whether or not to initiate a formal PDP.

Also, the GC opinion on whether or not this is in scope says that while *some aspects* are within scope, *the overall question of how to mitigate the use of fast flux hosting for cybercrime is broader than the GNSO policy development process.*

Would you be agreeable to an intended friendly amendment to change the opening sentenc after RESOLVES to:

*To initiate a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives...*

Failing that amendment, I believe we would then need a Supermajority in favor of the motion to initiate a PDP.

Tim

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Fast Flux Hosting From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, April 10, 2008 12:42 pm To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Hello,

I propose the following motion for Council consideration in our next meeting on April 17th, may I please have a 'second'?

Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh

Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website;

Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/

Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries,

Whereas, the GNSO resolved on March 6, 2008 to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff, to consider the SAC Advisory and outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the NS via "fast flux" IP and/or nameserver changes;

Whereas, the ICANN Staff has prepared an Issues Report dated March 25, 2008, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-rep ort-fast-flux- 25mar08.pdf, recommending that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux `hosting, and to provide data to assist policy development and illuminate potential policy options.;

Whereas, ICANN should consider whether and how it might encourage registry operators and registrars to take steps that would help to reduce the damage done by cybercriminals, by curtailing the effectiveness of these fast flux hosting exploits.

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To initiate a Policy Development Process in accord with the ICANN Bylaws, by forming a Task Force 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 Task Force 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 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?

The Task Force shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Task Force members. The Task Force report also shall outline potential next steps for Council deliberation.

Hi, In preparing for the meeting, I have reread the motion and have a process problem with it. To initiate a PDP we have a 33%+ threshold if in scope else 66% ( cf. X.6.3c) To decide on whether to do a Task Force we need a 50%+1 vote. (cf. X. 6.4, X.7) By combining the two into a single motion we have something that is neither beast nor fowl. I think that we need to split them into 2 motions: 1 to initiate the PDP on the specific issues. This will help us to determine if we in scope of not. 2. to form a task force Thanks. a.

Avri, you are right and the situation is no different to any PDP. I suggest this: MOTION 1 Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website; Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/ Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries, Whereas, the GNSO resolved on March 6, 2008 to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff, to consider the SAC Advisory and outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the NS via "fast flux" IP and/or nameserver changes; Whereas, the ICANN Staff has prepared an Issues Report dated March 25, 2008, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux- 25mar08.pdf, recommending that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux `hosting, and to provide data to assist policy development and illuminate potential policy options.; Whereas, ICANN should consider whether and how it might encourage registry operators and registrars to take steps that would help to reduce the damage done by cybercriminals, by curtailing the effectiveness of these fast flux hosting exploits. The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To initiate a Policy Development Process uniquely on the issues deemed in scope in the Issues report. (This will require a 33% vote) MOTION 2 Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP on fast flux hosting; The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To form a Task Force 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 Task Force 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 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? The Task Force shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Task Force members. The Task Force report also shall outline potential next steps for Council deliberation. (This will require a 50% vote)

Hi, Thanks for your note. and please ignore the note I sent that crossed this one. As it has been a council practice of late to delay a vote by a meeting if there was at least one constituency requesting more time for consultations, your proposal makes sense. I will replace the motion with the new motions, but mark them for discussion and not vote. In terms of what happens if the PDP succeeds, but the Task force doesn't, the by-laws dictate that we then go into deliberation in the council. In the past, the assumption has been that we then create a Drafting Team that either drafts a charter for an open working group or drafts a motion that for council considerations. As we saw in the domain tasting case, the motion then, most probably should then go out for a round of constituency consideration and public comment. The by- laws do not require this, and the council could just vote, but given the trend toward building more consensus as opposed to voting before having spent time finding consensus, this does not seem advisable at this point. a. On 16 Apr 2008, at 12:57, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

Philip and Avri, I understand the process question and proposed remedy you suggest. I support Philip's restated motions, with some edits incorporated below. I consider all these changes as friendly amendments to my motion made last week, with text of restated motions below.

It is not clear what would happen if we voted to initiate a PDP by 1/3 vote, but failed to get 1/2 vote to launch a Task Force. Also I have heard from a couple Councilors that they would like more time to discuss this motion with their Constituencies. And NCUC has not offered reasoning as to why they opposed the motion for an issues report or whether they oppose this motion. While this process should move forward quickly, it would be best to have as much consensus as possible at the outset. Since we have a full agenda tomorrow, perhaps we should just have a further discussion on these points (without reiterating positions stated on the list) and hold a vote til our next meeting. Curious to hear others' thoughts on any of this.

Thanks, Mike

MOTION 1 Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website;

Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/

Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries,

Whereas, the GNSO resolved on March 6, 2008 to request an Issues Report from ICANN Staff, to consider the SAC Advisory and outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the NS via "fast flux" IP and/or nameserver changes;

Whereas, the ICANN Staff has prepared an Issues Report dated March 25, 2008, http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux- 25mar08.pdf, recommending that the GNSO sponsor additional fact- finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux `hosting, and to provide data to assist policy development and illuminate potential policy options.;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To initiate a Policy Development Process to consider whether and how ICANN might encourage registry operators and registrars to take steps that would help to reduce the damage done by cybercriminals, by curtailing the effectiveness of these fast flux hosting exploits.

(This will require a 33% vote)

MOTION 2 Whereas Council has decided to launch a PDP to consider potential policy development to address fast flux hosting;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES:

To form a Task Force 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 Task Force 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 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?

The Task Force shall report back to Council within 90 days, with a report discussing these questions and the range of possible answers developed by the Task Force members. The Task Force report also shall outline potential next steps for Council deliberation.

(This will require a 50% vote)

Avri, do we have any kind of advice from the GC if the proposed motion is in scope or not? If we don't, how are we going to make a decison on this if the 66% treshold is not reached? Best, tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. April 2008 19:43 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] Fast Flux Hosting - Motion issue

Hi,

In preparing for the meeting, I have reread the motion and have a process problem with it.

To initiate a PDP we have a 33%+ threshold if in scope else 66% ( cf. X.6.3c) To decide on whether to do a Task Force we need a 50%+1 vote. (cf. X. 6.4, X.7)

By combining the two into a single motion we have something that is neither beast nor fowl. I think that we need to split them into 2 motions:

1 to initiate the PDP on the specific issues. This will help us to determine if we in scope of not.

2. to form a task force

Thanks.

a.