[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org

Thu Jun 8 14:08:49 UTC 2017

Thanks for the reminder of the Tshirt, Michael, I worked with Adam Back 
at Zero Knowledge Systems quite some time ago and that did bring back 
memories.  I got the job of doing the export permits because of the work 
I had done previously in government.

As far as misunderstanding the Internet at a technical level, I am sure 
you are absolutely correct.  I struggle to get by, and call up folks on 
a regular basis to explain things I don't understand. I think it is 
quite healthy to admit that there are areas of knowledge one is weaker 
in, as it is a complex world out there.  I am sure Milton Mueller would 
be happy to discuss this topic with you, he just wrote a new book on a 
related topic and held an interesting workshop that touches on these 
themes. 
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/05/19/governing-cybersecurity-or-the-internet-report-on-our-workshop/. 

Sadly Milton is not on this list, but I will certainly inquire as to his 
views on this matter.

Cheers Stephanie

On 2017-06-08 08:04, Dotzero wrote:
> Stephanie,
>
> Your response clearly shows that you don't understand how the Internet 
> functions at a technical level. To put it in simple terms, ICANN only 
> has a monopoly over who is a registry or registrar for gTLDs that 
> people choose to point to. Anyone can set up alternate roots and if 
> people believe that is a better mouse trap and choose to point to 
> those roots then that is what will work from both a technical and 
> practical perspective.
>
> When people talk about the "dark web", that is an alternative system 
> that does not rely on ICANN, the root servers and gTLDs which ICANN 
> controls or the ccTLDs which ICANN does not control.
>
> When you speak of "controlling things" you misunderstand the nature of 
> the Internet. Perhaps you were not around for this - 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States#/media/File:Munitions_T-shirt_(front).jpg 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States#/media/File:Munitions_T-shirt_%28front%29.jpg>
>
> Michael Hammer
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>     "ICANN has no power independent of the agreement of everyone
>     to use the ICANN policies for the IANA DNS root.  Ask MySpace or the
>     authors of Gopher whether there are any permanent favourites on the
>     Internet."
>
>     Actually, ICANN has a monopoly over who is an accredited registrar
>     for the gTLDs.  With respect to the contracts between registries
>     and registrars, I would argue that the community has historically
>     had very little opportunity to influence those contracts, with the
>     exception of the IPC who got their requirements in to the DOC
>     prior to the establishment of ICANN. At the moment we are
>     expending a great deal of our valuable time designing the public
>     interface that contains the data we deem acceptable to share. 
>     Inherent in the concept of tiered access, which some ccTLDS
>     already employ, and which the DPAs have already said (in documents
>     in our repository which clearly some of us need to reread) is the
>     concept of discrimination....you need to identify who you are and
>     why you want the data to get more access, possibly untraced access
>     (to enable investigations etc) and bulk data.  I do understand
>     that there is no "centre" there, but I certainly think that ICANN
>     has influence over who gets access to the next tier of data. Let
>     me repeat for greater clarity: I am not talking about thin data.
>
>     I have taken the time to plough through the Interpol data
>     protection handbook.  Some may recall that Caroline Goemans, the
>     Data Protection Officer for Interpol came to Copenhagen.   I
>     hesitate to even mention their handbook because folks will choose
>     to believe that I want the Interpol rules for data sharing to
>     apply to those tireless fighters who report abuse, across the
>     globe...so let me immediately say relax, I am not suggesting
>     this.  However, a mini version of how trusted parties share data
>     needs, in my view, to be developed. I was just accused of
>     suggesting something that is "impractical in the developed world,
>     and deeply chauvinistic, patronizing and exclusionary to our
>     colleagues in emerging nations where capacity building is exactly
>     what’s needed to deal with next-gen abuse." Frankly, it should be
>     admissible to suggest that we need a system that is slightly more
>     organized and less open to anti-competitive behaviour than the
>     club-of-folks-who-know-each-other under which we are operating
>     now.  It is precisely because we are global and a lot of the
>     criminal behaviour emanates from countries where nobody has any
>     mlats or has signed and implemented the Budapest Convention that I
>     would suggest we should think about some kind of accreditation for
>     access to data. Otherwise, registrars who surrender personal data
>     of their registrants are likely in violation of more law than mere
>     data protection law.  [for non-english speakers, the use of the
>     word "mere" was intended to be ironic"].
>
>     Cheers Stephanie
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170608/f03964bd/attachment.html>