[ALAC] On TOR and Alternate DNS

[Carlton Samuels]

+1.

See specific comments inline.

-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> 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:

+1

>  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.
>
+1

>
> 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.
>
Let's define 'success' more broadly.

> 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.
>
True. But a TOR session would be for much larger game.  You said why below.

>
> 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.
>
Yes.

> Indeed, some would argue (and they have) that such discussions are out of
> scope to ICANN for these reasons.
>
I would argue strongly the apposite; 'know your [likely] enemy' is the
obverse strategically of 'know your [likely] customer'.

>
> 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
>
All good.

>
> There is an education role to be played before we can even determine if
> other constituencies consider this within scope for ICANN to address.

Double down on your a) and c) for the effort at Singapore.

> 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.
>
...which is precisely why it fits into their mandate!  GNSO & ccNSO
denizens have lots of interests in competing or alternative business
models.  Remember how those constituencies viewed VI?

>
> 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 should always be top of mind, at least for those of us who see a
single Internet as a public good

> 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.

I agree. At least not until you breadcrumb it.

> 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.

Good viable solution.

> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>