Re: [hrpc] Censorship

On 11-03-2022 21:29, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I don't mean to hijack a discussion of one document with another, but, as everyone has probably noticed there is no shortage of these things being published every day. Rather I'm sharing this other statement because it's relevant to the discussion and takes a different approach, more like what Paul Wouters said earlier.
> 

I don't see the two statements as being incompatible at all. Both seek to ensure that the ability of people to exercise their human rights are respected, but also seek to come up with a measured solution.

> Dozens of human rights groups call for more clarity on sanctions, including authorisatinos for comms/internet (as was with Syria, Cuba, Iran): https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2022/03/Civil-society-letter-to-Biden-Admin-re-Russia-sanctions-and-internet-access_10-March-2022-1.pdf
> 
> If you'd like to read more of a narrative on tech sanctions, there's this great piece by Wikimedia Foundation VP: https://techpolicy.press/the-invasion-of-ukraine-is-horrific-cutting-the-russian-people-off-from-the-internet-could-make-it-worse
> 
> 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.

But haven't existing IG bodies made abundantly clear that they do not want to take this up? (See statements from ISOC, RIPE, and ICANN)

> 
> I think the statements that have been issued by internet governance bodies have so far come to the exact right conclusion. 

The statements in which they claim neutrality and that they will do anything within their power to not accommodate sanctions? I found those pretty stark in the light of current events actually.

What would have made them better is more political analysis of Russia as a bad faith actor in these spaces, enumeration of bad behaviour that is unacceptable and already considered actionable offenses (like DDoS, spam, a rogue root operator, etc), and an offer of clear guidance to implementers and other tech companies or organisations who would look to those bodies for cues on what they should do (or not do) in these troubled times.
> 

Now I am slightly confused, isn't this exactly what the PCH statement is trying to coordinate?

Best,

Niels

> -Mallory
> 
> On 3/11/22 3:57 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think that this call for a global, multistakeholder process to block access to Russian military and news websites would be of interest for discussion here.
>>
>> https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet-Sanctions.pdf
>>
>> I don't disagree with the concept, I would actually implement such a blocklist. I am worried that such a structured approach, and some names in the list of signatories, could weaponize the global Internet governance institutions and lead to the final fragmentation of the Internet, but this is not in topic here.
>>
>> I am however puzzled by how this call could be compatible with the pretty maximalistic approach to Internet censorship that this group (or PEARG, in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-pearg-censorship) has been taking. Possibly, if we applied draft-guidelines to this proposal it would not pass the test.
>>
>> I would like to understand the line of reasoning under which an ISP blocking access to child sexual abuse material or to phishing websites is a censor, but if a soon-to-be-formed Internet institution decides to block access to Russia Today globally as part of a war, then it's all good.
>>
>> Was this discussed by the proponents? I'd guess so. Can anyone explain?
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
>> vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com  
>> Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> hrpc@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> 
> -- 
> Mallory Knodel
> CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc

-- 
Niels ten Oever, PhD
Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of Amsterdam
Affiliated Faculty - Digital Democracy Institute - Simon Fraser University
Non-Resident Fellow 2022-2023 - Center for Democracy & Technology
Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas
Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina

W: https://nielstenoever.net
E: mail@nielstenoever.net
T: @nielstenoever
P/S/WA: +31629051853
PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

Read my latest article on Internet infrastructure governance in Globalizations here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2021.1953221