[ALAC] On TOR and Alternate DNS

Mon Jan 13 23:10:10 UTC 2014

+1 for the proposed. Count on me

José.-


2014/1/13 Fatimata <fsylla at gmail.com>

> +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)
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>


-- 
Arce, José F.
http://lnkd.in/bPdTThz