Fast Flux Working Group: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The main objective of the FFWG is to review the input it receives during the public comment and then derive which of the proposed next steps get the necessary support of the working group so that it can be included in the final report. <ref name="link2">[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26jan09-en.htm icann.org]</ref> | The main objective of the FFWG is to review the input it receives during the public comment and then derive which of the proposed next steps get the necessary support of the working group so that it can be included in the final report. <ref name="link2">[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26jan09-en.htm icann.org]</ref> | ||
== Issues Addressed by FFWG == | == Issues Addressed by FFWG == | ||
Revision as of 22:40, 2 April 2011
FFWG is an acronym for the Fast Flux Working Group. It was formed by Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in the year 2008 to deal with problems and to gain expert opinion regarding the best use of fast flux and its scope for the policy making of the GNSO. [1]
Objectives[edit | edit source]
The main objective of the FFWG is to review the input it receives during the public comment and then derive which of the proposed next steps get the necessary support of the working group so that it can be included in the final report. [2]
Issues Addressed by FFWG[edit | edit source]
• The FFWG was asked to study the following questions • Who all will benefit and would be harmed with fast flux? • Is there any involvement of Registry providers, or whether they can be included in the fast flux hosting activities? • What is the effect of fast flux hosting on registrants? • How fast flux affects the Internet users? • What are the best options available that help to protect from fast flux? • What measures the registries and registrars can implement with respect to changes in the process of DNS updates and policy changes to registry rules or agreements so that they can help to reduce the negative effects of fast flux? • What would be the positive as well as the negative impact of establishing guidelines, restrictions or limitations on the registrars/registries, registrants with respect to practices that facilitate or enable fast flux hosting? • What would be the impact of these guidelines, restrictions or limitations on the innovation of the products and services? [1][2]
Work of FFWG[edit | edit source]
The FFWG started working on addressing these issues in June 2008 and published an internal Report. The FFWG has provided all the answers to these questions set before it by the charter. It also came up with some interim conclusions and also came up with numerous ideas for the next plan of action that is for discussing and gaining feedback from the public when it is up for public comments. [2]