The role of Internet governance in sanctions

Bill Woodcock woody at
Thu Mar 10 19:36:30 UTC 2022

> On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:42 PM, Mel Beckman <mel at> wrote:
> I don’t understand your comment. I don’t think our statements are the same at all.

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.

> You, on the other hand, seem to be referring to — correct me if I’m wrong — sovereign countries pulling the plug on their Internet access.

Perhaps you’re misunderstanding, it’s difficult to tell.  The current problem is “sovereign countries” disconnecting (or attempting to disconnect) other countries.  That’s a lot of disconnection.  That’s bad for people, and bad for business.  I’m against that.  It’s relatively simple.

> The proposal you signed doesn’t address that, that I can see.

Perhaps read it again, then, since that’s the only thing it talks about.  Reducing the amount of disconnection from whole countries to as near zero as can be achieved in the presence of “sovereign countries."

> Slow your roll. This is nowhere near ready for “operationalization”, as the several comments here objecting to the thing testifies.

Putting aside matters of fact...

Because a couple of people objecting to a document they haven’t actually read means that the rest of the industry has to put up with national-level disconnection?

I’m pretty sure that’s not how the Internet works.  But, you seem pretty certain you understand how things work better than I do.  Perhaps you can explain it to us.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list