// SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
// SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2025 Jonathan D.A. Jewell <j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk>

= AXEL Protocol Outreach Strategy
:toc: left
:toclevels: 3
:icons: font

Complete guide for building coalition and engaging stakeholders.

== Strategic Framing

=== The Problem-First Approach

*DON'T SAY:* "Wouldn't privacy-preserving porn labeling be nice?"

*DO SAY:* "UK OSA and payment processors are forcing age verification. Current solutions are privacy-invasive. Here's a technical alternative."

=== Why This Matters

* Academics: See it as applied research, not theoretical pipe dream
* Platforms: See it as solving compliance pain, not adding burden
* Privacy advocates: See it as harm reduction, not enablement

== Email Templates

=== Template 1: Industry Research (Platform Engineers)

*Use for:* Informal pain point discovery

*Subject:* Research inquiry: Age verification compliance challenges

*Body:*
----
Hi [Name],

I'm Jonathan Jewell, a researcher at the Open University (and ReScript core team member). I'm studying technical approaches to age verification compliance in light of UK Online Safety Act requirements and recent payment processor mandates.

I've noticed that platforms are struggling with the tension between:
- Regulatory compliance (UK OSA, EU DSA, Mastercard requirements)
- User privacy (ID upload systems are invasive)
- Payment processor relationships (platforms losing banking access)

I'm exploring whether DNS-based content labeling with privacy-preserving attestation could address these challenges. Before developing this further, I'd like to understand the real-world constraints better.

Would you be willing to answer 3 quick questions about compliance challenges at [Platform]?

1. What's the biggest technical hurdle in meeting age verification requirements?
2. Have payment processor mandates forced changes to your verification approach?
3. Would a standardized, privacy-preserving attestation protocol be useful?

This is academic research (Open University), not a commercial pitch. Happy to share findings if helpful.

Best,
Jonathan D.A. Jewell
Open University
j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk
----

=== Template 2: Academic Collaboration

*Use for:* Formal verification / pilot study partners

*Subject:* Research collaboration: Privacy-preserving age verification protocol

*Body:*
----
Dear [Professor/Dr. Name],

I'm Jonathan Jewell, a researcher at the Open University and member of the ReScript core team. I'm working on a technical solution to a pressing regulatory problem and would welcome your collaboration.

**The Problem:**
The UK Online Safety Act (2023) and EU Digital Services Act require age verification for sexually explicit content. Current approaches (ID upload, credit card verification) are privacy-invasive and have caused platforms to lose payment processing relationships (see OnlyFans 2021 crisis, Mastercard 2021 mandates).

**The Proposal:**
I'm developing AXEL Protocol (Access eXplicit Enforcement & Labeling) - a DNS-based content labeling system with privacy-preserving attestation:

- DNS TXT records (like MTA-STS) declare content type
- IPv6-native with DoQ/OHTTP (ISPs can't log user access)
- Zero-knowledge proofs for age attestation (no identity disclosure)
- Jurisdiction-aware enforcement (18+ in UK, 21+ in Singapore, etc.)

**Industry Context:**
I've conducted informal research with platform engineers who confirmed this addresses real compliance pain points: regulatory safe harbor, payment processor requirements, and privacy preservation.

**Collaboration Opportunity:**
I'm seeking academic partners for:
- Formal verification (ReScript + Idris2 implementation)
- Privacy audit (DoQ/OHTTP/ZKP protocols)
- Pilot study design (measuring effectiveness vs. current approaches)

Would you or someone in your research group be interested in collaborating? I'm establishing a multi-stakeholder consortium (ASPEC) with representation from privacy advocates, platforms, and academic institutions.

Technical specification: https://github.com/hyperpolymath/axel-protocol

Happy to discuss further at your convenience.

Best regards,
Jonathan D.A. Jewell
Researcher, Open University
ReScript Core Team
j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk
https://axel-protocol.org
----

=== Template 3: Privacy Advocate Review

*Use for:* EFF, Open Rights Group, Privacy International

*Subject:* Privacy review request: Age verification protocol proposal

*Body:*
----
Dear [Name],

I'm Jonathan Jewell, a researcher at the Open University. I'm developing a technical protocol for age verification compliance that prioritizes privacy preservation, and I'd welcome your organization's review.

**Context:**
UK Online Safety Act and EU DSA are forcing age verification requirements. Current approaches (ID upload, credit card checking) create surveillance infrastructure and privacy risks. I'm proposing a technical alternative.

**AXEL Protocol (Access eXplicit Enforcement & Labeling):**
- DNS-based content labeling (opt-in, not mandatory)
- DoQ + OHTTP (encrypted DNS, ISPs can't log queries)
- Zero-knowledge proofs (prove age without revealing birthdate)
- Short-lived tokens (15-minute max, minimize tracking)
- No centralized identity database
- Jurisdiction-neutral labeling (enforcement is local)

**Why I'm Reaching Out:**
Before engaging platforms or finalizing the spec, I want to ensure this genuinely protects privacy and doesn't create new surveillance risks. Would [Organization] be interested in conducting a privacy audit?

Technical specification: https://github.com/hyperpolymath/axel-protocol

This is a neutral, multi-stakeholder standards effort (ASPEC consortium). No commercial interests.

I'd be grateful for your feedback or a referral to the appropriate team member.

Best regards,
Jonathan D.A. Jewell
Researcher, Open University
j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk
----

=== Template 4: Follow-Up (No Response After 1 Week)

*Subject:* Re: [Original Subject]

*Body:*
----
Hi [Name],

Just wanted to follow up on my email from last week. I know you're busy, so no worries if this isn't the right time.

If [topic] isn't your area, would you be able to point me to the right person on your team?

Thanks,
Jonathan
----

=== Template 5: Positive Response

*Subject:* Re: [Original Subject]

*Body:*
----
Hi [Name],

Thanks so much for being willing to chat! A few times that work for me:

[Suggest 3 specific times with timezone]

Also happy to work around your schedule. Would 15-30 minutes work, or do you prefer async (I can send questions via email)?

Looking forward to it,
Jonathan
----

== Target Identification

=== Industry Contacts (Platform Engineers)

*How to find:*
- LinkedIn: Search "[Company]" + "compliance" OR "trust and safety"
- GitHub: Contributors to content verification / age attestation projects
- Conference speakers: XBIZ, AVN tech tracks, VerifyMe

*Roles to target:*
- VP of Trust & Safety
- Head of Compliance
- Platform Engineering Lead
- CTO (smaller platforms)

*Priority platforms:*

Tier 1 (Large):
- OnlyFans (UK-based, recent payment crisis)
- Aylo/MindGeek (Pornhub parent, industry leader)

Tier 2 (Ethical, receptive):
- Bellesa (women-focused)
- Lustery (privacy-focused)
- FrolicMe (fair-trade)

Tier 3 (Smaller, easier to reach):
- Erika Lust Films (feminist porn)
- Four Chambers (artistic)

=== Privacy Advocates

*Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF):*
- Contact: https://www.eff.org/about/contact
- Use contact form, select "Research collaboration"
- Key people: Gennie Gebhart, Corynne McSherry, Seth Schoen

*Open Rights Group (UK):*
- Email: info@openrightsgroup.org
- Executive Director: Jim Killock

*Privacy International:*
- Contact form: https://privacyinternational.org/contact

*European Digital Rights (EDRi):*
- Contact: https://edri.org/contact/

=== Academic Researchers

*Open University (Start Here):*
- School of Computing and Communications
- Cybersecurity Research Group
- Search directory for: "privacy," "security," "cryptography"
- Internal email, request coffee chat

*External Academics:*

UCL Information Security Group:
- Dr. Sarah Meiklejohn (cryptocurrency, privacy)
- Prof. George Danezis (privacy-enhancing technologies)

Cambridge Computer Laboratory:
- Prof. Ross Anderson (security economics)
- Dr. Steven Murdoch (privacy, Tor)

University of St Andrews:
- Edwin Brady (Idris2 creator) - ecb10@st-andrews.ac.uk

*How to find more:*
- Google Scholar: "age verification privacy" (2020-2025)
- IETF mailing lists: DNS-over-QUIC discussions
- Conference proceedings: Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium

== Outreach Execution Plan

=== Week 1-2: Industry Research

*Contacts to make:* 5-10 platform engineers

*Priority:*
1. Smaller ethical platforms (easier to reach)
2. Larger platforms (harder but valuable)

*Goal:* 2-3 responses validating pain points

*Tracking:* Create spreadsheet with columns:
- Contact name
- Organization
- Date sent
- Response?
- Follow-up date
- Notes

=== Week 3-4: Privacy Review

*Contacts to make:* 1-2 privacy organizations

*Priority:*
1. EFF (most influential)
2. Open Rights Group (UK-based, relevant)

*Goal:* One privacy org agrees to review

=== Week 5-6: Academic Outreach

*Contacts to make:* 3-5 researchers

*Priority:*
1. Open University colleagues (internal, easier)
2. UCL, Cambridge (external, credible)
3. Edwin Brady (Idris2 technical validation)

*Goal:* 1-2 academic collaborators

=== Week 7-8: Consolidate & Iterate

*Activities:*
- Synthesize feedback from all sources
- Update specification based on constraints
- Refine governance structure
- Prepare for formal platform engagement (Month 3+)

== Safety Considerations

=== Physical Safety

*Risk level:* Extremely low

*Why:* Legitimate adult industry operates via legal channels (lobbying, litigation), not violence. You're proposing a technical standard, not enforcement.

*Comparison:* This is like proposing HTTPS (industry adopted it), not like DEA enforcement of drug laws.

=== Online Safety

*Risk level:* Moderate

*Realistic concerns:*
- Online harassment / trolling
- Reputation attacks ("anti-sex-worker," "pro-censorship")
- Doxxing attempts

*Protections:*
- Use institutional email (j.d.a.jewell@open.ac.uk)
- Don't publish home address
- Frame as research, not crusade
- Emphasize opt-in nature, privacy preservation
- Have coalition backing (EFF validates you're pro-privacy)

=== Legal Safety

*Risk level:* Very low

*Why:* You're publishing a specification (protected speech), not enforcing laws or operating a platform.

*Protections:*
- First Amendment (US) / Freedom of Expression (UK)
- Academic research exemptions
- No commercial interest (neutral standards body)

== Success Metrics

=== Phase 1 (Months 0-2): Foundation
- [ ] Website live and professional
- [ ] Email addresses working
- [ ] 2-3 platform engineers respond to research inquiry
- [ ] 1 privacy org agrees to review

=== Phase 2 (Months 2-6): Coalition
- [ ] Privacy audit completed (EFF or ORG)
- [ ] 1-2 academic collaborators engaged
- [ ] Formal verification begun (Idris2 ABI)
- [ ] Pilot study design agreed

=== Phase 3 (Months 6-12): Deployment
- [ ] 2-3 platforms agree to pilot
- [ ] Reference implementation deployed
- [ ] IETF RFC draft submitted
- [ ] IANA application submitted

=== Phase 4 (Year 2+): Standards Adoption
- [ ] RFC published
- [ ] 5+ platforms implementing AXEL
- [ ] ASPEC consortium formalized (501c3 or Linux Foundation)
- [ ] Founding members secured (CDN, privacy, academic, platform)

== Resources

* Deployment Checklist: link:deployment-checklist.adoc[deployment-checklist.adoc]
* DNS Setup: link:cloudflare-dns-guide.adoc[cloudflare-dns-guide.adoc]
* GitHub Pages Setup: link:github-pages-setup.adoc[github-pages-setup.adoc]
* Email Setup: link:email-setup.adoc[email-setup.adoc]
