[ALAC] On TOR and Alternate DNS

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 10 January 2014 11:44, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> Dear Evan,
>
> I believe the subject would be of interest to all of ICANN and it
> would certainly be an excellent topic to discuss in an open
> multistakeholder round table session of the type Rinalia organised and
> co-Chaired in Beijing and Durban. I would suggest that Patrik Fältström
> would be an ideal co-Chair for this.
>

I'm not opposed to this per-se:  My main point above, with which I hope you
agree, was simply that this issue cannot be easily co-mingled with the 1Net
and governance discussions.

However I question the potential success of the kind of session you
describe, and especially the level of buy-in outside of the SSAC and ALAC.
The previous round-table sessions focused explicitly and exclusively on
issues within ICANN's remit: notably, IDNs and public-interest issues
related to the gTLD expansion.

A discussion of TOR, essentially a replacement/workaround technology to the
DNS in which ICANN currently has absolutelty zero authority or management
capability, seems FAR beyond the traditional remit of such meetings.
Indeed, some would argue (and they have) that such discussions are out of
scope to ICANN for these reasons.

There are three very different facets possible within a session about TOR:
a) The mechanics: A tutorial on what TOR is and how it works
b) The ethics of a system that protects privacy but impedes legitimate law
enforcement
c) The challenge to ICANN, both in business and policy, of a potentially
viable alternative to the DNS

There is an education role to be played before we can even determine if
other constituencies consider this within scope for ICANN to address. While
ALAC (and especially the FCWG) have broader mandates, It is hard for me to
see at all how any discussion of TOR fits into the scope of the GNSO and
CCNSO. Many may not see this through any other context than a business
threat.

Now, there is a broader issue, implied by (c) above, that if ICANN and the
DNS are perceived to no longer serve the public interest, the public will
seek out alternatives and ICANN can not assume it has monopoly control over
the way Internet users find their content. This theme has already been a
focus of At-Large, most notably through the White Paper of the FCWG and our
additions to the gTLD Consumer Metrics debate. It is one that has routinely
caught the interest of At-Large but has not found interest amongst other
parts of the ICANN community.

So, Olivier, I don't think this will attract broad constituency-wide
support. In fact, I invite you to raise it in your next AC/SO chairs call
and see what uptake you get.

But let me meet you half-way. I propose a public Singapore workshop on the
topic: "TOR and Alternatives to the DNS", split into three components as
suggested above, each with different speakers. Calling it a public
workshop, not in the ALAC room, would address the limits of attendance (but
still offers no assurance that the domain industry will care about the
issue). The speakers could be found outside of ALAC (ie, Patrick) however I
suspect it will not attract broad pan-constituency composition you seek.

Whether it's called ALAC or FCWG or something else, I don't care; it will
still be the same people involved with organization. I mentioned the FCWG
because it has already been broadly concerned with the challenges of DNS
alternatives. As you say, the FCWG can be tasked with working on any action
items coming out of the workshop.

- Evan

PS: To read about a real-world use of TOR *today*  to circumvent attempts
to use the DNS to impede access from end users to content, see
http://piratebrowser.com/