Re: [gaia] Blog on AFRINIC proposal

Mallory Knodel <> Mon, 05 June 2017 08:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9137712EA7C for <>; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 01:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eTbX9DhJmGbp for <>; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 01:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E728812EA67 for <>; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 01:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5956B5E80 for <>; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 04:35:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] (localhost []) (Authenticated sender: with ESMTPSA id 79D0E5E7C
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Mallory Knodel <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:35:00 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 01:57:19 -0700
Subject: Re: [gaia] Blog on AFRINIC proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 08:56:32 -0000

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 Knodel
May First/People Link ::
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9  B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780