Fwd: [council] Fwd: Charter for Fast Flux PDP WG

[Robin Gross]

NCUC'ers:

See the below proposal for the GNSO to create a Working Group to
proceed with "Fast Flux Hosting" Policy Development Process (PDP).

Personally, I think the issue of FFH is outside of ICANN's scope and
will lead to further restrictions of anonymous speech online and
burden for consumers, so I voted against launching a PDP in our last
meeting.   But since only 30% support is needed to launch a PDP at
ICANN, the motion for a PDP squeaked by and ..... away we go with a
PDP to do god knows what damage to the Internet (again).

So I hope NCUC will have several volunteers to contribute to this
Working Group and help keep big biz and law enforcement in check.

Anyone interested in getting involved in policy development in this
area?  :-)

Thanks,
Robin


Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ltu.se>
>> Date: 22 May 2008 16:02:38 EDT
>> To: Council GNSO <council at 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
>>
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080528/06a69a68/attachment.html>