Re: [hrpc] Censorship

[farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>]

Hello,
Just to provide you with a little bit of context, it is true that there has
not been a collective action about this, but certainly we have raised the
issue of sanctions at ICANN, some did about participation at the IETF, we
have focussed on RIR's and sanctions. I provided a proposal about RIRs
defense pact against sanctions applied to Internet infrastructure after the
unfortunate events in Afghanistan (didn't get anywhere). Many of us have
been working on these issues for years because well because we are either
from those regions and/or understand the implications in real time or
because some operators actually believe in interconnectedness and
non-discriminatory treatment at infrastructure level.
Anyhow let me tell you what has been done so far, I am sure I am missing
the great work of many others about these issues.
ccTLDs and IP addresses were threatened by sanctions and jurisdictions for
many years, one interesting case was request to attach .IR .SY etc to
terrorist victims in the US, read about it here, ICANN in that instance
sent its lawyers to argue against the attachment:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/calderon-cardona-motion-to-quash-writs-29jul14-en.pdf
Sanctions and ICANN: (2017, a multistakeholder! recommendation to receive a
general OFAC license
https://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/01/13/icanns-jurisdiction-sanctions-and-domain-names/

A bit of background about domain names being hampered by sanctions:
https://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/04/08/icann-jurisdiction-and-domain-name-issues-report-your-problems/
More background on how sanctions affect domain name registrants:
https://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/01/13/icanns-jurisdiction-sanctions-and-domain-names/
New gTLD and sanctions:
 https://circleid.com/posts/20220217-oneworld-.someinternet-new-gtld-registries-and-sanctioned-countries
<https://circleid.com/posts/20220217-oneworld-.someinternet-new-gtld-registries-and-sanctioned-countries>
Sanctions and Afghanistan:
https://labs.ripe.net/author/farzaneh-badiei/the-tragedy-of-internet-infrastructure-in-afghanistan/
Sanctions and CDNs: (by Ensafi and other)
https://ensa.fi/papers/403forbidden_imc18.pdf,
https://digitalmedusa.org/sanctions-global-internet-connectivity-and-content-delivery-networks/
Where
can this be discussed? League of Internet networks?


The thing that makes me super uncomfortable with this initiative is that I
believe it was born out of a revenge fantasy
<https://digitalmedusa.org/internet-governance-revenge-fantasy-or-helping-ukraine/>
that will do no good for Ukraine but it will affect connectivity, despite
all the good intentions and nice principles they set out.

I am not sorry about the shameless publicity of the materials, we have been
shouting about this and knocking on many doors for at least a decade. Many
have focussed on these issues and can tell you exactly what the problems
are when you act at the infrastructure level and introduce discrimination.
I am in favor of demilitarization of the Internet. I have spoken against
cruel dictatorships, I will be the first to sign up for any private
collective that would come out effectively against the atrocities of these
regimes to their people and others on the Internet and provide relief for
sanctions and dream to demilitarize the Internet. But this initiative
unfortunately has way too many pitfalls to endorse it.









Farzaneh


On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 11:54 AM Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Monday, March 14, 2022, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mallory,
>>
>> As for my view, I'm with Stephen in that I don't think it's a
>>> particularly effective approach that the PCH letter takes and yet the
>>> political risks are tremendous. If we are to build the capacity in
>>> internet governance spaces like the IRTF/IETF-- and I would argue that
>>> is a far better goal than a new IG body-- it had better be on rock solid
>>> ground in terms of understanding efficacy and tradeoffs.
>>>
>>
>> One of the questions which Bill raised was whether it was appropriate to
>> do nothing in response to the recent events.  There is anecdotal evidence
>> that some "digital" certificates were revoked.  I doubt that it has
>> anything to do with protocol considerations or either of the two statements.
>>
>> There was agenda item nearly a decade ago [1].  There hasn't been much
>> open discussion on those topics in response to the recent events.  This
>> could mean two things:
>>
>>   (i) There isn't the capacity in those spaces; or
>>
>>   (ii) People in those spaces are not interested in those topics.
>>
>>
> I would argue it’s worth building that capacity and garnering that
> interest.
>
> -Mallory
>
>>
>>
>> 1.
>> https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf
>>
>
>
> --
> Mallory Knodel
> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>