[ALAC] On TOR and Alternate DNS

Mon Jan 13 12:43:27 UTC 2014

+1 for an open educational workshop first, as suggested by Evan.

Fatimata Seye Sylla
Sent from my iPad

On 11 janv. 2014, at 01:50, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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)
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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)