The role of Internet governance in sanctions

Thu Mar 10 15:39:39 UTC 2022

+1
mh

10 mars 2022 16:34 "jim deleskie" <deleskie at gmail.com (mailto:deleskie at gmail.com?to=%22jim%20deleskie%22%20<deleskie at gmail.com>)> a écrit:
 I respect the people and goals here, but strongly echo Mel's statement. This is a much larger hammer then mail filtering lists.  -jim  
 On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 11:26 AM Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org (mailto: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 (mailto: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/ (https://razomforukraine.org/) which is focused on medical
> support.
>
> randy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220310/e46d2ab2/attachment.html>