The role of Internet governance in sanctions
deleskie at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 15:34:58 UTC 2022
I respect the people and goals here, but strongly echo Mel's statement.
This is a much larger hammer then mail filtering lists.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 11:26 AM Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> wrote:
> In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document:
> “Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are
> potential targets of sanctions.”
> What is a “propaganda agency”. A political party? An incumbent candidate
> for re-election? The IRS? Anyone the “majority” disagrees with?
> Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the
> political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates.
> I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential
> for unintended consequences is huge, as is the potential for intended,
> politically-driven consequences
> -mel beckman
> > On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:03 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> > maybe it is just that i am sufficiently anti-authoritarian that i try
> > not to have the hubris to set myself up as the authority. maybe that
> > in itself is hubris.
> > as i was raised by someone who was a conscious objector in ww2, i can
> > not bring myself to contribute to weapons etc. so i have donated to
> > folk such as https://razomforukraine.org/ which is focused on medical
> > support.
> > randy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG