The role of Internet governance in sanctions

Fri Mar 11 15:08:47 UTC 2022

Sylvain,

Thank you for posting this plausible scenario. It is this kind of bad effect that I’m concerned about.

Consider also that the document doesn’t specify government specifically, only “agencies“, without defining what those are. I think it’s quite possible that a future operational team might decide that particular political party is an agency requiring sanctions.

-mel via cell

On Mar 11, 2022, at 6:21 AM, Sylvain Baya <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear NANOG-ers,
Hope this email finds you in good health!

Please see my comments below, inline...

Le vendredi 11 mars 2022, Brandon Price <PriceB at sherwoodoregon.gov<mailto:PriceB at sherwoodoregon.gov>> a écrit :

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov at nanog.org<mailto:sherwoodoregon.gov at nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 11:37 AM
To: nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: The role of Internet governance in sanctions

>Perhaps not.  My goal is to minimize Internet disconnection.  Maybe that’s not your goal.  I was trying to give what you wrote the most generous possible interpretation.

There is no realistic way for these disconnects to happen now, as acknowledged by the fifth principal in the draft. How does creating a framework to accomplish this do anything other than increase the disconnects?

Hi Brandon,

Thanks for your email, brother!

You put forward a good objection for this proposal.

...i think the proposal is a wise idea, but imho it can
 not touch the root-causes of the problem at hand.

It seems to be the same approach as the anti-shutdown
 DPP (Draft Policy Proposal) [1].
__
[1]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/archive/anti-shutdown-02/amp>

Applying sanctions to a country has side effects... :'-(

To figure it out, one should look at the below scenario:

~°~
1] This draft proposal reaches a rough consensus
2] A selection is done to build the Operational Team (OT)
3] The OT agrees on a rough consensus on the
decision to apply specific sanctions on a given
country government's Internet infrastructure used
to spread their "propaganda" globaly...
4] The OT implements the consensual decision
5] The Internet's infrastructure of that ccGov is
shutdown. No more trafic from it to the Internet!
6] That ccGov decides to cut the rest of the
Internet's interconnexions of their country to the
Internet...
7] The whole country is unreacheable from the Internet
8] That ccGov is the only source of "information"
 within their country boundaries
9] ...
~°~

As the draft proposal seems to target cc Governments,
 practically speaking, then what if the policy-decision
 to be implemented concerns the usGov?

Thanks.

Shalom,
--sb.

Brandon

--

Best Regards !
__
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure>
Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220311/e9507182/attachment.html>