 Welcome to World War 3.0, Chaos Control and the Battle for the Net. This morning started for me in January on a snowy day when I got an email from my editor at Vanity Fair. He had read a story in the New York Times about Hollywood moguls being doxxed in the run-up to the SOPA PIPPA craziness. So I jumped on a train and I went down to Washington DC. I didn't know much about this stuff at all, much about these bills, much about the conflicts that are brewing over control of the net. But I started going around Washington listening to people and over the course of that week and the next week, and that was the pivotal week when everything went down with Wikipedia, with Google. I went from talking to a bunch of people on the hill who really felt like they kind of knew what was going on, to a bunch of people who resembled nothing so much as trauma victims. It was like they'd been hit by a train, and it was a very unusual opportunity to talk to lawmakers and their aides who were in a posture of humility and truly trying to figure out what the heck was going on. I called a number of the people who are sitting here to ask them for advice about how to write the story. It quickly became clear to me that whatever was going on with SOPA and PIPPA couldn't be understood without taking a longer view, without trying to see it in a big picture. When I tried to do that, I tried to break it all down into the simplest possible true story I could tell. I wanted it to be something that a kid could understand. I found that when I asked the people who knew the most about this that they couldn't tell it as a simple story, because they were so far inside it. I think one of the things that happens in the community of people, the sort of people who come to DEF CON, is that you forget how people outside, how little they understand about what you know. That leads to sometimes great expertise at tactical and short-term thinking and some difficulties with strategic and long-term thinking. I hoped that the story I was working on and I hope that the panel discussion we're going to have this morning can help nudge things more in the direction of strategy and long-term thinking. In a conversation with Vince Cerf, I realized that had a sort of light bulb moment that most of the problems with the net could be broken down into four categories, two P's and two S's, privacy, piracy and intellectual property, security and sovereignty. Sovereignty, because a boundary list system flats geography and challenges the power of nation states. Privacy, intellectual property, information wants to be free, but rights holders want to be paid and protected. Privacy, because the same anonymity that allows for creativity and descent on the net also gives cover to criminal activity. And a lot of what we think we can do anonymously is actually possible to be tracked. And finally, security, because free access to the internet makes users vulnerable to various kinds of hacking ranging from government surveillance to remote manipulation of industrial and military processes. The other thing that I learned after I began to be able to organize this in my head is that most of the way we tell the story of the conflicts over these four areas is either just wrong or actively unproductive, destructive of the possibility of solving the problems. We tend to talk about these issues as conflicts between a stark kind of order and disorder. That's what this design that the magazine commissioned for the story was intended to portray. They asked me what the artist should think about when he was doing this, and I said think about Fight Club and the Federalist Papers. So order and disorder, or with apologies to Maxwell Smart, chaos and control. And that leaves out the people with the best ideas and the most pragmatic approach to these problems. People like, I believe, the ones who are sitting here with us. You probably already know all of them. But just briefly, Rod Beckstrom has been sitting at the center of the world of internet politics for many, many years. He's a serial entrepreneur. He's been a senior advisor to the Director of National Security. He wrote The Starfish and the Spider, which most of you know. And he recently stepped down as CEO of ICANN, which gives him great freedom to say all sorts of controversial and newsmaking things this morning. We have the ghost of Jeff Moss, who will manifest very soon. We have Dan Kaminsky, you know, global expert on the DNS, among many other distinctions. And Josh Corman from Akamai, who also in his off hours writes one of the best blogs, best analyses of any kind of anonymous that you can find out there. It's the blog is called Cognitive Dissidence. And he does that with Brian Martin. This morning we're going to talk about what organized chaos stands for. And we're going to look forward to an event that will happen in December called The Wicked, the World Council on International Telecommunications. This will be a renegotiation of a 24 year old United Nations treaty called the International Telecommunications Regulations, the ITRs. And when the story came out, the feedback that I got was that many people believe it's a matter of some urgency that we figure out what organized chaos really stands for. And they see The Wicked in December in Dubai as a pivotal moment in the tension between chaos and control. So Rod will frame for us some of the things that are at stake there. And the other panelists will begin to help flesh out what might be done in preparation for that. In addition to that generalized feedback, there were a number of really specific things that happened. That were quite exciting. One was that Rod and Nico Selle and Josh Corman all independently had the idea for this panel. Josh was the one who really pushed for it to happen, and I want to thank him for that. And Gordon Smith, who is a former Deputy Foreign Minister of Canada as well as a former ambassador to both the EU and NATO, reached out and said that he wants to organize a conference about the concept of organized chaos with an eye to The Wicked. A lot of folks in Washington think that the United States and its allies are not preparing well enough for this. Gordon is putting some serious resources into developing that conversation. I'd like him to stand really quickly. He came in this morning so he could listen and so that he could talk to those of you who have ideas about what ought to happen going forward. So with that, having gone over time, I am going to sit down, turn it over to these folks, and then we'll talk amongst ourselves, and at the end take a few questions from you. Thank you. Thank you, Michael, and thank all of you. And this community has enriched this global dialogue that's going on, and certainly enriched the organization I just had a chance to lead. ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which is the multi-stakeholder body that with the global community, with many of you involved, helps to coordinate the domain name system. The internet domain names, all internet protocol addresses, and also publishing what we call the Protocol and Parameter Registries of the Internet. The three sets of things that make billions of devices and millions of private networks look like one place, the unique identifiers of the internet. And this community gave us some amazing talent. The dark tangent, who remains very dark in this room right now, joined us as Chief Security Officer about a year ago, which was a tremendous uplifting to our security activities at ICANN, and we're very grateful for that. Diffie, the renowned cryptographer, also joined us as Vice President of Information Assurance. So we really have benefited from your involvement by giving us those amazing people and through your participation in this process. I'd like to kind of lift this thing up to a very high level, and then we'll probably jump down. I also want to explain, you know, I've worn a lot of different hats in my career, and a Silicon Valley CEO and investor for a couple of decades for a while. Then I worked for the U.S. national government, and then I ran a global institution. Today I'm just going to speak from a global perspective, because I think it's important that that perspective be represented at this table, and it's a perspective that I believe in. And I think it's also in the interest of great nations, such as the one that I was fortunate to be born in. But I'll speak from a global perspective and talk about this system, where we are, and places it might go, because none of us know where this is going. We're going through the most radical transformation in geopolitical power structures in our lives in this room. There are some people in this room who were alive when the last massive transformation happened, which was in the late 1940s, immediately following World War II. And so actually I want to start at that extremely high level and talk about three types of institutions that are engaged in what's going on and what some people view as a very epic battle in geopolitics and other people might view as a phase change in physics, where everything's changing. And those three structures are number one, the nation state. And when was the nation state created? In the Treaty of Westphalia in the 1630s, following on the Thirty Years' War, which had ripped Europe apart. And it was created as a structure that could then go into bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements to try to secure some peace in Europe. That was evolution one of the nation state, the creation of the nation state. Evolution number two of the nation state came with the age of reason and enlightenment and the revolutions and it led to representative constitutional governments, democracies and others. That's the second phase and that started in the 18th century largely and has continued to the present day. But the third big change was after World War II and specifically as a result of the invention of a new technology called the nuclear bomb. And the nuclear bomb changed the reality of warfare and what the impact and what the outcome could be. And the world was horrified not just by the prospects of two horrible world wars but what might happen next with nuclear weapons that could potentially wipe out the species. That concern, that fear, that technology led to the creation of intergovernmental organizations on a broad basis in this world, specifically the United Nations whose mission was to create peace and stability in the world. And by the way I think that institution plays an extremely important role in peacekeeping in the world which is a very difficult job and it actually does it pretty well. But the United Nations was created and an entire set of bodies underneath it with true granted powers from other nation states. So that's the third evolution of the nation state. And where are we now? We're on the cusp of the fourth. And no one's defined this next structure. No one's defined and we in this room and the citizens of the world get to help figure out and design what do we do with the nation state model. This will not be the end of the nation state, I predict. It will be a very, very significant evolution. And that evolution is driven by what? Not the nuclear bomb by the internet. The internet and ubiquitous connectivity, communications and information dispersion all over the planet. So what we're really talking about today is the interplay of nation states, intergovernmental organizations and a new species of organizations that came out of in large measure out of the internet itself, multi-stakeholder governance structures. So when the internet was created as this collaborative research effort by Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn and others, they developed in a way as you know, because many of you have probably written RFCs and contributed to RFCs in the IETF, but in a collaborative fashion, in a very loosely coupled fashion, in a very dynamic, organic set of bodies and institutions that led to IETF, Internet Society or ISOC, ICANN, World Wide Web Consortium or W3C, and the regional internet registries, and, and, and, and. These bodies all over the world of technical experts and legal experts, business experts who engage in defining the standards for the internet to the IETF and then through governing the internet, the domain name system, system for example, through ICANN. So that's what we're talking about. So that's kind of the game table is how are those three going to interact? And that's the global dialogue that's happening and that's why WICCIT is important in December of this year. And some people are very concerned about the threat that the primacy of the multi-stakeholder model, which includes governments and must include governments because they're important stakeholders and they have a very important role in our society that that could be lost and shifted to an intergovernmental structure such as the ITU. And so where does that balance come out? That's what this discussion is globally that's going on and that's why every one of you in this room are important as participants in that, in that conversation. I'd like to try to summarize and simplify in one sense where I think we want to get or where we want to stay because I think it can be very simply described as anyone in the world should be able to communicate with anyone else in the world at any time and any place. And to do that you've got to have point-to-point connectivity of the internet and the internet has to be unified. But if that's possible, if anyone could talk to anyone anywhere, anytime, then that's a vision of what we want to protect and hold. And it gets violated when the internet's fractured and vulcanized. Now I think there's a set of principles then that we can look at, simple principles five for leading where we want to get to through these discussions. Number one is the internet should be open and unified and remain that way. Secondly, the internet must be global and its governance structures. Thirdly, it should be as neutral as possible because it needs to be that to accomplish those other two. Fourth is that it should be governed by transparent and open multi-stakeholder processes with meaningful government involvement. Finally, there should be minimal regulation. And if regulations going to be proposed and introduced, it should first have to stand up to a burden of proof that it's going to add net value to the overall system. It's not enough to say, oh, we see a problem, oh, we need more rules, we need more legislation, let's go fix that. Because the secondary and tertiary effects are often far worse than what the system was trying to fix in the first place. And that's what you, and that's what the citizens of the world told politicians when they proposed SOPA and PIPA and ACTA. And so the politicians of the world are on alert now, as Michael described, they were traumatized after what happened in January and D.C. That's part of ushering in this new world. But again, our goal should not be to tear down governments, our goal, because we're a part of governments and we're part of this community, we're part of many communities, how do we make them better? How do we reboot? How do we evolve? And that comes up by making them better, decentralized governance and more flexible and more responsive to meeting the needs of citizens, more accountable and more transparent, which many people in this room contribute to. And that's a very important part of the process. So in summary, I think that's a high-level view is, we've got to think about where do we take the nation state, how do these three players interact. And what we can all do is two things, strengthen the multi-stakeholder model and then keep expressing the views that we should not move the coordination of the internet from the multi-stakeholder model that includes all voices to a process that only includes one. Thank you. Hey, everyone. I'm Dan Kaminski. I sling packets. Which meant when I started going out to Washington to go talk to politicians about SOPA, it was a rather interesting experience. It was a predicted experience. I was actually told maybe 200 feet out there, Dan, you've now done enough. You're going to be going from a hacker to a statesman. I'm like, dude, I'm going to write more code. Nope. Nope. It was right. We have a really interesting thing that's happened. If you read a lot of science fiction, this is a great quote. We thought we'd have a revolution in energy. What we got was a revolution in information. It's not merely that everybody should be able to communicate with everybody else at any time. It's that people actually want to. That is surprising. Geography has historically been this incredible filter on who interacted with who. I remember the first time I got on the internet, in the early 90s, and I had an hour conversation with someone and I find out he's in Finland. Magic. And it really is. It's not just a reconfiguration of government. It's a reconfiguration of human social behavior that genuinely everything else is trying to figure out. This stuff from Michael earlier about privacy, piracy, security, and sovereignty. You hear these things and you're like, oh, yeah, whatever. It's another framework that someone thought up. No, no. This is actually really interesting because when you look at the various forces trying to reconfigure the internet, you see two things. One, they tend to come from one of these four dimensions, privacy, piracy, security, and sovereignty. And two, sometimes they ally and sometimes they're wildly opposed. In fact, in all combinations are there. Privacy and piracy are right on board for control of personal data. Is our privacy and security aligned? Well, it depends. In one sense there's this whole question of information disclosure. Privacy and security want information disclosure to be controlled. On the other hand, security would very much like to attribute bad guys. Find out who they are and go after them. A thing that sovereignty wants. But privacy is like, wait, we want anonymity. So you have this really interesting thing when you actually draw out the graph. Each of these interests that are trying to reconfigure the net sometimes are totally allied, sometimes are totally separate. But there's a fifth group that's missing from this conversation. And this is the group that's actually in charge. And that's reliability. This is the golden goose and nobody wants to cook it. It turns out most technology sucks. What we're doing now has some problems. But if you want to understand the core root of the conservatism in changing things, it's most alternatives will fail immediately and not only will have repeatedly what we call the internet today is what the nerds decided to use because that was the thing that didn't go down all the time. You know, we see these corpses of technology. You know, Minitel finally got shut down. Minitel should have been the internet. I mean, France was decades ahead of where we were. But it was this massively centralized system and it just could never grow. You know, you just see this... I think the best example of technology that's still to this day doesn't work. My God, consumer electronics is a nightmare. Have you ever tried to use the same remote control to go to someone's house and use their entertainment system? I can't figure it out. So this is kind of the underlying crux. We've got a system now that is mostly optimized for moving pictures of cats. It's very good at it. We'd like it to do more and it will do more. I mean, we are really starting to get some progress. DNS acts a big deal. We can do a lot of crazy stuff with security now that has been impossible. Things will get better. But be aware as we go ahead and re-engineer and re-architect, there's a lot of forces that they're not about reliability and because of that, they're dangerous. So that's what I've got to say. All right, I guess it's my turn. I'm finding the further I get into the hacker community, the more I'm going back to my once useless philosophy degree. I think my entree into this was Jericho, Brian Martin and I did a panel here one year ago on whoever fights monsters and we really looked at anonymous and the rise of anonymous, the rise of the chaotic actors as of consequence. A lot of the things we do, most of us get into security because we like to break things, because we like to solve problems, because it's profitable. A lot of us are very talented in this DEF CON community. But it started making sense that now this is where hacking and whether they're good at it or not, regardless of your opinion, we saw the id unleashed. We saw people expressing themselves via technology, via hacking, even if low level in a new way and we thought that this was pretty important. So maybe as a student in history, people don't really know who the black hand was or what they did or why they mattered. Certainly not at the time, but the black hand was a little group. They completely stood for, but they assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, which set the world on fire and is largely credited for starting World War I. Now, why the heck did that happen? It wasn't that assassinating one dude was going to start World War. It's that there was tremendous entanglement and tension and unrest in Europe. And that was the arbitrary spark that lit the world on fire. It would have been something else. And it felt so a few of us chaotic activity, the state of the world, joblessness, distrusting government, following Europe, following the American Empire. It felt like we were watching history and maybe this time, instead of reacting to it, perhaps we can get in front of it. So a lot of people are dismissive about Anonymous, but our pursuit of trying to, for the next following year, we did a blog series called Building a Better Anonymous. And by talking about all the ways in which such an activist group could be more principled, could be more focused, could be more potent for their own purposes and their own interests. But also to reduce collateral damage, we felt we had to start engaging and getting people talking. I mean, you might remember a year ago, if you talked about Anonymous, they punished you. I mean, they destroyed Aaron Barr. And even some of the ones that claimed they were free speech were attacking journalists like Brian Krebs. So really wanted to confront this, not because it was cool or sexy, because it was actually risky, but it was important. So how do we get to the ITU? Well, if you pay attention to what angers and infuriates an on, it's things like SOPA, right? And you know what? It kind of angers and infuriates most of us. And I probably should have preface that I'm speaking as an individual citizen. My opinions are not reflective of my employers. But essentially, there's this false dichotomy, and I think Michael's article really did a beautiful job with this, which is to pay attention between chaos and control. There's this great Commander X quote. He said, given the choice between tyranny and chaos, I will choose chaos. And what occurred to us is, but don't you see that one fuels the other? And we saw this escalating tension, right? Michael asked me in my dining room, he said, so don't you think some of these attempts and these technologies are going to give more control and fix some of these security issues? And I said, no. We are the hacker ruling class, right? We don't exercise our might very much. Remember when the Great Firewall of China went up? What did the CDC do? They poked through, right? There's a crack in everything. You know, I said, I'm not so much concerned that you... I said the attempts to control the internet are foolish. They're impossible. I mean, I echo a lot of what Rod says. I said my concern with Anonymous isn't that they're going to you know, take over the world. It's that I'm afraid they're going to scare policymakers into being stupid enough to try to control the internet. So really what we wanted to find was what's that beautiful balance point, okay? So if you don't know what Chaos Monkey is, Netflix came up with Chaos Monkey and then there are AWS slices, it's at all times introducing faults and failures. And because of it, because it's kept them honest and vibrant, they were the only web service that was up and running after the April 21st or 24th outage. And it's my belief that a little bit of Chaos is a beautiful and vital and necessary thing. But too much Chaos can undo rights and freedoms and liberties and stability that took us hundreds of years in blood and treasure to win. So I want us to be the force of organized Chaos. I want us to say when we see threats foreign or domestic to our way of life and the things that we care about that we need to be a balancing effect and to temper that. And that might mean overzealous reckless Lulsec types that are scaring people into making stupid policy decisions. And it may also be making sure we have hackers and packet guys testifying to Congress to make sure they don't help the bad guys with silly proposed legislation. So we've been fairly passive and we've been passives in this and we tend to think about the thing we're trying to crack or the protocol we're trying to fuzz. But I'm hoping that you can realize that we are potentially that ruling class. We can keep the Internet just the way we want it, but we're either going to be a force of destabilization or a force of that chaotic order and balance. I don't know what the balance is, but I know that too few of us are thinking about this social impact. How does hacking and cyber affect our lives? I just said cyber. I have to drink. So anyhow I don't want to see that blackhand moment and we think that that flashpoint I know Michael asserts pretty compellingly that this flashpoint, this inflection point could be the ITU moves in December and we haven't even told you what those are. I think it could be something else. It could be the London Olympic Games. There's a lot of physical surveillance, a lot of physical security. People feel spied upon. You have a lot of people that are angry and jobless. It could be the RNC and DNC protests that are talking about bringing Molotov cocktails on both sides. We used to a few years ago. We have very high jobless rates. Very angry people. And the disturbing turn is that instead of looking to fix their system people are increasingly leaving it and working outside of it. And when you feel disenfranchised and disempowered in lieu of a better organized alternative what we have is what you've seen with Occupy with Lulsec with Anon. So we want to at least frame that you can't be passengers. No one's going to save us. What I had a very honest phone call about was we were looking for who the grown-ups are. Like, who's in charge? Who's paying attention? Who's figured out how big a deal this is? And there are no grown-ups. It should scare the bejesus out of you, but you are the grown-ups. So... Suckers! My closing thought to you is I'm a huge Spider-Man fan, but in my goal test there is a life-sized Spider-Man statue but... You know, that Uncle Ben quote, with great power comes great responsibility. And I think the new A-bomb is the sorcery that we do. We have that power, but we've been reluctant to use it just like a good samurai. You only take your sword out when necessary and it'll deliver a killing blow. What you see is that if Anon is an early manifestation of less responsible, less thoughtful power. So, let me tweak what Uncle Ben and Stan Lee said. With great power comes great responsibility. I see a rise in personal power without the commensurate wisdom, humility, compassion, or restraint to use it responsibly. And that's the role we have to play. That's all I'm going to say. Thanks. Josh went to the trouble of making these slides for us and I completely forgot to use them. So, here's one that has our contact information which I'll put up as I ask the first question to Rod. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about the details of what exactly is being proposed for the Wicked. How it could change our use of the internet, our lives on the internet. And I wonder if you could then also address the question of what might be the role for this audience or the variety of roles that people in this audience could use to get involved and be part of that discussion. Josh just talked about galvanizing as a force of balance or a force of destabilization. And I wonder, having been inside the system to the extent that you were, what you see as the role for those outside. Sure. I'm going to borrow this microphone for a second. So, there's a number of different categories of proposed potential changes. ITU in some ways, it has 193 governments as members. The proposals tend to come up through the regional councils and then percolate up and then get considered at for us such as Wicked. Probably the most concerning potential move is to redefine what the ITU does overall. So, the ITU was created to help connect telegraph systems in the 1860s. And then it evolved to cover the telephone system. And then the telephone led to telecommunications. And so, the ITU was created in the analog era. And incidentally, I want to note that the ITU I think does an excellent job of global spectrum allocation. Which is one of those processes they run, which is very important. And there's sort of no controversy about spectrum allocation. But some of the proposals right now is to redefine their scope and mission to handle ICT or information and communication technologies. Now, that may sound harmless, but when you think about what ICT represents, its computers, its databases, its cloud computing, it can be defined as that cyber security, etc. So, there's a potential proposal by some members or desired to fundamentally expand the scope very dramatically that could affect many aspects of the internet. Number one. Number two, there's some subtle things such as terms like enhanced cooperation about wanting to create enhanced cooperation. Now, those are two words. It sounds nice, right? Enhanced cooperation. What it really means is moving the multi-stakeholder dialogue into a governmental forum where the other stakeholders sit and chairs and listen and don't get a chance to speak. Potentially. There's a lot of small proposals in different places about whether it's they get involved in allocating internet addresses or involved in country code, what we call country code top-level domain operations around the world. So, there's a lot of different discussions. ITU as a body is the global internet, international governmental organization. It's important. It's valued. But the multi-stakeholder community, and by the way, ICANN is so open and ITU members sat on our board when I served as CEO for a year. They're a member of our governmental advisory committee. They're allowed to participate in any and every process that we have as a community. So, ICANN is extremely open. That's not always reciprocated. By the way, I have a respect for ITU. It has an important role. But like any institution, it needs to have its role, which is defined and different. And ICANN and the multi-stakeholder community groups are really the ones that have created the internet and helped to drive it forward. So that would be my high-level summary. And what can people in the room do? Communicate to your leaders. Communicate whether it's your representatives or your diplomats to other countries. Make it clear. If you believe the internet should be governed by the global community in a multi-stakeholder fashion, make that clear and make your voices strongly heard. Let me, you know, just to feisty it up a little bit. I mean, I didn't learn about ITU and congressmen. I didn't learn about it from the news. I learned about it from some really justifiably angry and ons. Because they view this as an existential threat to a free and open internet. They think this is going to increase censorship. It's going to increase surveillance. It's going to allow more oppressive regimes to do more stuff so we don't have an internet but lots of little zones. It's a threat to Skype. It's a threat to VPNs. It's a threat to touring. So what are the top three fears that people have that will come as a result of this meeting? I think you pretty much just nailed them. You know? I think you hit them. So I mean, that's the concern. We talk about transparency and the need for transparency and I'm not as furious justifiably because it's the opposite of transparent. It's been opaque. I can't figure out what to read and educate myself on. It's very little unless you're the one delegate from the one country model. So it's been very opaque and I don't really care about that. It's very troubling. This is why there's a hornet's nest and I believe right after this happened that's why we think it's a flash point. That's when it hits the fan. So a lot of you couldn't spell ITU until we brought it up today. So we're really hoping to put a lot of eyeballs and a lot of hackers on this. To the point about communicating with your leaders the rod made as well as the one that Josh made earlier the fear that he has that folks are going to be stupid enough to scare lawmakers into locking down control. I wanted to add an observation that I made about the time that I was spending with people in Washington in that pivotal week which is that we also need to be it's important in the approach to this conversation also to avoid the possibility of scaring them into complete inaction because what when they became trauma victims what I found was that they were afraid to say anything that the tone of the debate or the tone of the outcry over SOPA and PIPA was so overwhelming and they were so shamed by their own ignorance that they felt they couldn't even have a conversation they felt they couldn't ask a question and that's a really frightening situation. So I do want to say one very important thing I'm actually a believer in democracy now I had this great conversation I'm talking to the senator's staff and they say oh do you know anyone from the senator's state who knows anything about this issue I'm like I happen to would you like to talk to a constituent they're like no that won't be necessary we've received 16,000 messages from our constituent so absolutely guys go talk to the local staff go talk to your local people like it's a big freaking deal I cannot even emphasize how much surprised there was about the level of really high quality well-reasoned communication that came from the open nerd community to congress we actually were heard it was kind of cool I just want to build on and say in fact Dan did a superlative job among others you know venture many other people going to the hill early this year many times in the past and sitting down with our political leaders and representatives educating them on what happens when you try to change these policy frameworks and you don't respect the technology the underlying technology and so there's an ongoing education process that's necessary that all of us in the room with so many technical capabilities can contribute to and worldwide and that's important we shouldn't assume that these politicians and leaders that have to deal with such a huge range of issues are going to understand how the DNS works and how it does and how it damages the unity of the internet so there's a lot of education and Dan did a superb job and we hope to see a lot more of that you know I've had a lot of good rich interactions with some of the really moral anons the ones that are really doing this not to just have angst and anger but try to work and contribute to the system and one of the sentiments that keeps coming up I have a couple of DMs and tweets here but this comes from a total loss of faith in the system right they think the private sector is corrupt, the government is corrupt, they're ineffective, they're out of touch so this was a natural emergent property right so again if you want to call in on skids and what not that's interesting but it's a natural emergent property and some of them really are trying to do some really good things some of them are like the Joker you know we saw a lot of really aggressive and nasty stuff but what that says here is you know and that's really why we try to get them engaged in a dialogue in this building about our anonymous series it's not like I wanted to waste a year of my life with Jericho because he's a rabid squirrel but it's that you know by talking this out I think I look at things like the ITU or things that follow it you know maybe we vote down Sopa because it's ridiculous but something's going to pass at some point and the question is you know is the emergence of something like a non which low-bared entry and low upper bounds impact a good blueprint in template for what a better one could look like I'm not sure the existing and on is up for the job of the fallout of the ITU but I know this room could be and you know I'm not going to try to be a commercial for this but there's going to be an excellent panel on anonymous in this room at five o'clock come I don't care if you think it's dismissive come and hear it out because there's some people that genuinely want to make the world better they're trying to fight for anti-sensorship anti-corruption anti-surveillance these are things we kind of care about so don't judge them mentor them and then later tonight there's also in the same room the we are Legion documentary which is fantastic it's probably the the most compelling narrative of how it emerged and where what's been driving and fueling it and it's funny as hell too but you know this is probably not something you want to dismiss this is probably something it's finally high time to educate yourself on and get involved in because the idea and the emergence is necessary it's just not fully formed yet I guess I realized last night I'm an activist and I think a lot of you are too I just want to be responsible and effective about that we've got a few minutes left does anybody have any questions one in the front so I agree with everything you guys violently agree with everything you guys say the importance of actually contacting your law makers whatever writing a good letter really really pays off I wrote a UPC a million years ago wrote a bunch of TCP IP stacks I'm a real geek and I'd rather code and I'd rather do stuff like that but one of the questions I'd like to ask the panel so I've also been part of this in a lot of the dark back rooms some of the ITU stuff where I've actually been threatened by some of the people there and it's clear that from the very low level of this it's a battle and make no mistake it's a fight some of these people the ITU is feeling a relevance feeling like they might be sidelined but I've heard also some people say that maybe the ITU is a check so you know they're one group trying to take control and the existing systems are what has worked for a long time and so what do you guys have to say to the idea that it's always good to have something like the ITU or somebody out there that's keeping us all honest in a sense so I'm not a pro ITU guy by any means but there's an idea that there is both kind of this this thing that you take I don't want to conya you want to make you guys really happy we're not going to clear this room so please feel free to stay in here problem is fixed and enjoy just a quick response to what Rick said and by the way Rick Lamb led the DNS key signing effort and the whole key signing process development for ICANN which was an amazing global collaborative effort and has been successful in bringing crypto the root of the internet so thank you for that Rick and I think I actually want to make clear too as I said ITU has an important role and personally had very good dialogues and cooperation with the ITU leadership and organization but what we're talking about here is scope and roles of organizations and how the internet should really be coordinated in its evolution so it is extremely important process Michael back to you did an ITU spec I'm so sorry I tried that alone is its own answer but on a very serious basis like the status quo we have right now for all of its warts has a really, really powerful free speech open communication, open governance model and you know when I think of those three things I don't really think ITU is going to come from another question right there so this is a very political question when soap and pipa came up I spoke with Silicon Valley girl so I spoke with my Pelosi boxer both Pelosi and boxer lied to us about their involvement or their staff lied writing letters and stuff afterwards so I am for the first time very unconfident in my ability to get the information and I can hear from you that it was out of fear because they were so overwhelmed but how do you really get through to these folks and how do you make a change on that level I can give you one piece of information which is none of them realized how powerful we were they didn't realize this self organizing thing was going to happen and it totally did they also didn't realize any sort of from the perspective of all the congress people that I spoke to this was really just seen as a bipartisan jobs bill everyone's on the same side what could go wrong and the idea that anything could happen to security or freedom or the ability to make websites it just wasn't on their radar until right at the end and then oh my god it was we're going to take questions across the hall so if anybody wants to come over please do thank you very much