[ALAC] On TOR and Alternate DNS

[Rinalia Abdul Rahim]

An educational workshop about TOR and its implications for users and ICANN
would be excellent for the Singapore meeting.

In London/Los Angeles (depending on how long it takes for people to
understand the potential impact of TOR), the stakeholders may be more
prepared and willing to participate in a multistakeholder policy roundtable.

Best regards,

Rinalia
On Jan 11, 2014 4:12 AM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
wrote:

> +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)
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>