The Fast Flux working group is calling for constituency statements. The
bad news is, they are in fact due now, though I would guess that
delivering one by the middle of next week would not be problematic. The
good news, if you can call it that, is that only two other
constituencies have made statements -- the registries and intellectual
property. The IP statement is brief and is pasted directly below.

"The IPC appreciates very much the activity of the Fast Flux WG. We
recognize that Fast Flux is a serious topic which so far has not been
widely discussed and analysed. The work of the Fast Flux WG enables
members of the IPC to learn more about the issues involved. At the
moment IPC does not have any specific comments or recommendations
regarding Fast Flux and the most appropriate resolution of negative
impacts connected with Fast Flux, nevertheless we hope to be able to
comment in detail at a later stage of the work of the WG."

The registry statement is longer, and I have attached the PDF.

In part 2 of this message, which I will send later this afternoon, I
will suggest what ALAC's statement should be. I do not believe it has to
be as long as the registry constituency's statement, but should make the
point that fast flux is used by criminals to do bad things that make the
Internet an unpleasant experience for users. Probably there will be a
critical points of disagreement: Those who argue for ICANN to have a
limited scope will say that enforcement activities are outside ICANN's
scope (you can see this to some degree in the registry statement, though
they also acknowledge that fast flux's only real purpose is criminal
activity).

Part 2 will come later this afternoon.

Beau Brendler

****************************************************************************
********
SCANNED

****************************************************************************
********