I'm happy to propose it as one of the main topics of the Future Challenges WG's meeting in SIN. The FCWG is EXACTLY designed to encourage this kind of forward thinking, And, as Co-Chair, I will certainly attest that it is not taboo or out of scope. While we need to be working to make the DNS better, but we must also be aware of what alternatives could be ready should the current system (or the one we have once the TLD expansion takes place) fail the needs of Internet information providers and end-users. Personally I would prefer NOT to mix this with Internet Governance/1Net activities. On 9 January 2014 14:43, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:

Hi Garth (and Patrik)

I for one would really welcome the session you propose. And my suggestion is that it be an open suggestion as well. For example, everyone on the Privacy Proxy GNSo WG should be interested as well as EWG - since one of the topics of discussion is who should be able to use a pp service - again noting there are many legitimate reasons to hide one's identity

Holly On 10/01/2014, at 6:30 AM, Garth Bruen wrote:

...

Hello all,

I have been looking to introduce some discussion subjects which are becoming more critical in our space but have been considered off-limits or even taboo by some in the ICANN world. While in BA Glenn and I met with Patrik Falstrom from SSAC to talk about TOR and other topics.

For those who do not know The Onion Routing (TOR) is a system that provides additional privacy or obscurity to Internet communications by extending and blurring the network path. The regular DNS, of course, works by using the shortest, best-known traffic paths for quick communication and keeps extensive logs in various places for troubleshooting. While this method makes sense for effective data movement it also exposes Internet users to spying, stalking, interception, etc. TOR works in the opposite way by dropping information using very long network routes to make source identification nearly impossible.

This presents challenges as well as opportunities. Most of the media attention about TOR has been on the illicit side, how criminals have used it to conduct illegal commerce in secret. However, there are a large number of people who depend on TOR to protect their identity for completely legitimate reasons. This week I met with Kelley Misata from the TOR Project in Boston who has championed the use of this technology for various victims and people under threat. I think it is important for us as policy-makers to have open discussions about this technology.

As far as it relates to ICANN, TOR represents an alternate method of Internet communications. While there is no domain system, TOR issues what it calls "domains" in the form of unique strings which bind to IP addresses and serve content through those unique strings. These "domains" can only be reached with TOR. There is no governing body, registry system, or costs for these "domains." Yes, it is confusing as to how TOR can look like a DNS but not be a DNS, others can explain it much better than me.

Additionally, there are other DNS roots out there which ICANN has no authority over. These roots have been created for a variety of purposes and I have complied a list of over 600 "unsanctioned" TLDs which can be accessed with different configurations.

I have proposed that at the Singapore meeting we have a session where these topics can be presented and discussed for our benefit and awareness. I will add this as a discussion item on the next NARALO call and propose it be discussed on the next ALAC call.

Thanks, Garth

-------------------------------------

Garth Bruen gbruen@knujon.com

“If history is deprived of the Truth, we are left with nothing but an idle, unprofitable tale” -Polybius

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)

-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

Agree with Evan. Think this needs to be discussed in its own context first before being put into another venue From: evanleibovitch@gmail.com [mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2014 3:44 PM To: Holly Raiche Cc: Garth Bruen; Patrik Fältström; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] On TOR and Alternate DNS I'm happy to propose it as one of the main topics of the Future Challenges WG's meeting in SIN. The FCWG is EXACTLY designed to encourage this kind of forward thinking, And, as Co-Chair, I will certainly attest that it is not taboo or out of scope. While we need to be working to make the DNS better, but we must also be aware of what alternatives could be ready should the current system (or the one we have once the TLD expansion takes place) fail the needs of Internet information providers and end-users. Personally I would prefer NOT to mix this with Internet Governance/1Net activities. On 9 January 2014 14:43, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Hi Garth (and Patrik) I for one would really welcome the session you propose. And my suggestion is that it be an open suggestion as well. For example, everyone on the Privacy Proxy GNSo WG should be interested as well as EWG - since one of the topics of discussion is who should be able to use a pp service - again noting there are many legitimate reasons to hide one's identity Holly On 10/01/2014, at 6:30 AM, Garth Bruen wrote:

Hello all,

I have been looking to introduce some discussion subjects which are becoming more critical in our space but have been considered off-limits or even taboo by some in the ICANN world. While in BA Glenn and I met with Patrik Falstrom from SSAC to talk about TOR and other topics.

For those who do not know The Onion Routing (TOR) is a system that provides additional privacy or obscurity to Internet communications by extending and blurring the network path. The regular DNS, of course, works by using the shortest, best-known traffic paths for quick communication and keeps extensive logs in various places for troubleshooting. While this method makes sense for effective data movement it also exposes Internet users to spying, stalking, interception, etc. TOR works in the opposite way by dropping information using very long network routes to make source identification nearly impossible.

This presents challenges as well as opportunities. Most of the media attention about TOR has been on the illicit side, how criminals have used it to conduct illegal commerce in secret. However, there are a large number of people who depend on TOR to protect their identity for completely legitimate reasons. This week I met with Kelley Misata from the TOR Project in Boston who has championed the use of this technology for various victims and people under threat. I think it is important for us as policy-makers to have open discussions about this technology.

As far as it relates to ICANN, TOR represents an alternate method of Internet communications. While there is no domain system, TOR issues what it calls "domains" in the form of unique strings which bind to IP addresses and serve content through those unique strings. These "domains" can only be reached with TOR. There is no governing body, registry system, or costs for these "domains." Yes, it is confusing as to how TOR can look like a DNS but not be a DNS, others can explain it much better than me.

Additionally, there are other DNS roots out there which ICANN has no authority over. These roots have been created for a variety of purposes and I have complied a list of over 600 "unsanctioned" TLDs which can be accessed with different configurations.

I have proposed that at the Singapore meeting we have a session where these topics can be presented and discussed for our benefit and awareness. I will add this as a discussion item on the next NARALO call and propose it be discussed on the next ALAC call.

Thanks, Garth

-------------------------------------

Garth Bruen gbruen@knujon.com

“If history is deprived of the Truth, we are left with nothing but an idle, unprofitable tale” -Polybius

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...) -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

On 10 January 2014 11:44, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@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/

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@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@telly.org> wrote:

...

On 10 January 2014 11:44, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@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@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+(ALA...)

...

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)

+1 for the proposed. Count on me José.- 2014/1/13 Fatimata <fsylla@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@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@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@telly.org> wrote:

...

On 10 January 2014 11:44, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@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@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+(ALA...)

...

...

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)

...

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)

---

ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)

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

I would like to see someone from the At Large community chair it. Garth since you introduced the topic to us - it would be good to get you to Chair it and involve others like Patrik etc in the discussions and panel. Whatever happens it is good to have a fair dialogue to hear all kinds of perspectives on the matter so that the audience is informed and able to make its decisions On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

On 10 January 2014 11:44, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@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/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)