[Chapter-delegates] Input Request: DNS Blocking

Tue Jan 18 06:23:12 PST 2011

Fred, all,

so the message is "I have to tell you 'just say NO' and here's WHY"; 
otherwise people will go on with ill-advised policies and quote pieces of 
an ISOC statement, without the "say NO" part, as endorsement.

In saying this I am considering the pile-up of evidence by Tommy, Paul, 
Marcin and all other colleagues who have chipped in.

Sally, I do know this puts you in a tough position in DC. The rich, 
high-quality feedback in an international context that ISOC provides 
should give clout to ISOC's arguments.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732

* Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
* LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
* Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
* Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

* Ven a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org.mx, ISOC http://www.isoc.org
*Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, Fred Baker wrote:

> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:15:12 -0800
> From: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>
> To: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> Cc: Sally Wentworth <wentworth at isoc.org>,
>     Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>,
>     isoc-advisory-council at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Input Request: DNS Blocking
> 
> On Jan 17, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>> it would seem that the short answer is "just say NO"...
>
> Yes, but you know as well as I do that this comes across as unresponsive to a person who really wants to hear "yes" and thinks that the person who says "really, the last 23 times I said 'no' I actually meant it' is dodging the question.
>
> This is the answer I gave OSTP. The meeting proposed didn't happen - the timing was not good for any of us.
>
>> From: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>
>> Date: October 29, 2010 12:28:57 PM PDT
>> To: ...
>> Cc: ...
>> Subject: Re: White House disucssion on dealing with rogue websites
>>
>> Let me raise some questions; these are far from "my final word", but they are my current reflections. I would be happy also to discuss by telephone. Next week will be difficult for me. We can take timing up offline.
>>
>> You have already noted the impact to the Internet infrastructure and the futility of the gesture, so I won't go into that. However, a further point on it: it's not obvious to me that DNS Blocking even touches the distribution system. BitTorrent and systems like it use a different form of naming based on the content being sought as opposed to the place one might find it. Changing a naming system that isn't necessarily even used is perhaps like putting a stop sign on a road parallel to the one that is having a problem. It doesn't address the problem, and it creates one where one didn't exist.
>>
>> As those that deal with child pornography and Al-Quada materials have learned (Cleanfeed), name blocking and route blocking are at best temporary measures, and require a significant support system to maintain. If for example a site is distributing content and an ISP null routes the relevant address or prefix, that doesn't stop the distributor from placing the content at a different IP address. BitTorrent and its friends would accomplish this automatically, and those seeking the content would probably not notice an issue.
>>
>> You are also likely aware of the world discussion of content control regimes in China, Iran, and elsewhere, and of US Government sanctioned activities designed to reduce or eliminate them. Content control systems tend to make the papers, and when they do it's ugly. Serious efforts to impose similar content control systems in the US would likely reflect poorly on politicians that voted in favor of or signed such a bill, and given that the parties proposing it are somewhere in corporate America, would likely fuel the fires of those that comment on politicians being "in the pocket" of corporate America. It would likely also be challenged on constitutional grounds - freedom of speech and all that.
>>
>> The apt comparison is to obscenity. We have any number of laws on the books and mechanisms in place to ensure that pedophiles and children can't touch each other, and the only real value they have demonstrated is as a basis for law enforcement activities. They have not prevented the content distribution or the behavior. There is no silver bullet that will remove distribution of copyrighted content from the Internet any more than it can remove the distribution of pornographic, terrorism-related, or political content from the Internet, although there are any number of people that would like to see each of those happen.
>>
>> I tend to think that those who feel their intellectual property rights are being violated should use the traditional approach - take the accused to court, make their case, and ask for a judgement that suits them. They will need to do so in a court having jurisdiction, of course, but that is also the case for pirated software, rogue book publishing, wikileaks, and so on. And as Steve pointed out, this is best done in cooperation with our international partners, not despite them.
>>
>> On Oct 28, 2010, at 1:23 PM, ... wrote:
>>
>>> Dear wise Internet engineers whom I happen to know (or wish I knew):
>>>
>>> Greetings from the White House (well, acutally, the building next door to the White House).  This email is a request for your help in sorting through a pending policy issue with notable implications for the technical architecture of the Internet.
>>>
>>> To wit:  We have lately been evaluating a set of proposals to deal with foreign-hosted websites that facilitate blatantly illegal copyright infringement, like the unauthorized streaming of newly released Hollywood movies or the unauthorized hosting and downloading of music files.  In current Washingtonese, these are "rogue websites."  The proposals call on Congress to legislate a requirement that US ISPs block or divert the resolution of domain names that were adjudicated (by some due process process and authority to be determined) to be facilitating blatantly illegal commercial infringement operations.  These DNS blocking proposals were met with strong objection by members of the technical community, who argued, among other things, that DNS blocking would be ineffective yet produce harmful secondary effects as users switch their DNS from their ISPs' name servers to foreign or local name servers with potentially unknown configurations, creating new security vulnerabilities and fragmenting the global DNS.  (See, e.g., Dan Kaminsky's comment, attached).  In response, the copyright holders who advanced these proposals asked:  "OK, so if not via DNS blocking, then how should we deal with blatantly illegal, foreign-hosted web sites and services?"
>>>
>>> To work through that question, from a technical perspective at least, we would like to invite you to a meeting at the White House complex on Monday, November 8, at 4pm.  We will start with the premise that rogue websites are a problem, and ask what are the most effective solutions for addressing the concern, recognizing that we don't want cause unintended consequences and material collateral damage to the Internet?  We will also be joined by folks from the copyright holder community.
>>>
>>> Four important pre-apologies:  (1) November 8 is very soon, (2) it's in DC, (3) we can't pay travel expenses, and (4) we don't have good remote participation capabilities.  But we'd be grateful for your participation, in the miraculous event it might actually be possible.
>>>
>>> Two final points:  (a) I'd be delighted to talk with you beforehand to set the stage, and get your input, in the event you can't come, and (b) if there are other folks from the Internet technical community that I don't know or should have thought to invite, please let me know.  Space is limited, etc., but we want as thorough and clueful a conversation as possible.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Yours very truly,
>>>
>>> --...
>
>