Re: [gaia] Blog on AFRINIC proposal

[Maureen Hernandez <[e-mail]>]

I agree on all the opinions expressed here, this is not a one answer (or
easy answer) topic... my main concern is that when we think something like
this

"The answer to all of that is to continue to make the Internet ever
more valuable both in its own terms and in social terms.  We want to
create the conditions in which, when governments say they're going to
"shut down" the Internet, they look absurd because they're going to do
most damage to themselves."

we may not be taking into account that this government don't care about
what they look or their "reputation" given the fact that the shutdown in
the first place is not a very popular act.

On the other hand, I totally agree that the solution is not to about
"politicising
IP address allocation" I think what is wrong here is that we are looking
for answers without asking the right questions. In my humble opinion I feel
heartbroken when I see governments using the Internet as a weapon instead
of as a tool, sadly the time has come when political organisations have
realised what lies on the Internet, therefore I think what we really need
to ask is what can we do to try to stop this from keep happening?

Are we, as a technical community, gonna keep working pretending this is not
happening? trying to connect the next billion to "an" Internet that will
depend on the desire of their government rulers?

I don't know what we can or should do, but with all the respect, I do think
we should do more!


2017-06-05 3:35 GMT-05:00 Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>:

> On 04/06/17 06:43 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 05:09:51PM +0300, Nicolas Pace wrote:
> >> One could be cross boarder links, or border IXPs... But I'm not that
> versed in these things to give an opinion
> >>
> > A government sufficiently motivated to "shut down the Internet" will
> > shut down those links and IXPs too, unless they are of sufficient
> > density and number that the government can't go after them all.  The
> > "numbers" problem is actually _part_ of the problem.  (This is also,
> > of course, why increased concentration in "tier 1" transit providers
> > is dangerous for the Internet.)
> >
> > But the more basic problem with the proposal as presented is that it
> > is attempting a tech fix to a social problem.
>
> It's the governments who shut down the internet who are using tech to
> fix social problems. Furthermore withholding IPs is not a technical
> solution to the shutdowns-- the shutdowns could still happen.
> Withholding them is a form of high-pressure advocacy.
>
> So really, this is advocacy to fix a tech problem that was introduced to
> fix a social problem.
>
> Corinne's post does an excellent job of breaking down the issue and
> asking the real question, which is does the proposal put at further risk
> internet access for users who are already struggling with connectivity.
>
> -Mallory
>
> --
> Mallory Knodel
> May First/People Link :: mayfirst.org
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>



-- 

Maureen Patricia Hernández González
Systems Engineer. Universidad de Los Andes.

<https://ve.linkedin.com/in/maureenhernandez>
<https://twitter.com/maureenhg>  <https://www.facebook.com/maureen.hg>