Re: [hrpc] Censorship

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

When they say the RIPE meeting is "14h-15h30 (UTC+1)" - what does it mean?

Does it mean they consider 14h to be 14h UTC and I need to add 1 hour to 
it now in order to find the right start time for Paris?

Or does it mean they consider 14h to be Paris time, so I dont need to 
add 1 hour to it now?

(various people consider various answers to this question, generally 
speaking, but I need to know what does this meeting organizer think, so 
I dont miss it)

Yours,

Alex

Le 21/03/2022 à 17:57, Desiree Miloshevic a écrit :
>
>
>> On 21 Mar 2022, at 14:59, Alexandre Petrescu 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
> Hi Alex
>>
>> Le 19/03/2022 à 13:18, Desiree Miloshevic a écrit :
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Fwiw - there’s a panel next Tuesday on the topic of Internet 
>>> sanctions and connectivity, organised by the RIPE Coop WG.
>>> It does clash with some parts of the IETF program, but it maybe a 
>>> good place to continue the discussion thread.
>>>
>>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/coop/remote-sessions/remote-session-22-march-2022
>>
>>
>> Thanks, I registered.
>>
>> The URL provides a list of 4 other URLs with interesting text, some 
>> of which were already mentioned. (
>>
>>   * Keep The Internet Open <https://keepitopen.net/>
>>   * Multistakeholder Imposition of Internet
>>     Sanctions<https://www2.computable.nl/uploads/pdf/multistakeholder-imposition-of-internet-sanctions.pdf>
>>   * Civil Society letter to Biden Administration re.
>>     Sanctions<https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Civil-society-letter-to-Biden-Admin-re-Russia-sanctions-and-internet-access-10-March-2022-1.pdf>
>>   * RIPE NCC Response to Request from Ukrainian
>>     Government<https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/ripe-ncc-response-to-request-from-ukrainian-government>)
>>
>> All 4 references point to long letters speaking official words for 
>> 'err.. not sure... better wait'.
>>
>> There are other references that say otherwise - why aren't they 
>> cited?  I mean, all these reports of internet cuts and restores, the 
>> DDoSes, the invisible sites, the 'unkillable internet' statements, 
>> the oneweb cancelled launches (Internet in space), the social media 
>> cancellations or almost-cancellation, the reports of desires of 
>> self-cut, the 6G project plans avoiding Russian partners, the .su 
>> abnormality, the internet coverage of bomb shelters, the temporary 
>> lack of communication to sensor networks in sensible areas…
>>
> The list is long indeed.
> The above documents were cited because some of their signatories 
> participate at the discussion and may argue one way or the other.
>>
>> What will be the take-aways, the next steps, the actionable items 
>> after the session?
>>
> It is for the RIPE community and the participants to decide.
>
> Desiree
> --
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Desiree
>>> —
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 18 Mar 2022, at 13:48, farzaneh badii <[e-mail]> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 12:47 PM Niels ten Oever 
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Dear Farzaneh,
>>>>
>>>>     Thank you very much for your email, please allow me to respond
>>>>     in-line:
>>>>
>>>>     On 15-03-2022 17:40, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>>     > 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.
>>>>
>>>>     I believe in that as well, that is why I think that
>>>>     institutions that limit the interconnectedness of others should
>>>>     not get away with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How? By gathering some people to take collective action against 
>>>> networks that you will decide whether they are military or 
>>>> propaganda?  I even saw in these debates that some called 
>>>> interconnectivity Internet exceptionalism. The initial discussions 
>>>> we had, the intention was not even providing sanction relief, that 
>>>> was not even what some people had in mind or even knew about the 
>>>> effects. Some were upset that RIPE had declared that it is neutral 
>>>> (I interpret in favor of interconnectivity). So we were discussing 
>>>> what can be done. We were in the middle of the debate about how and 
>>>> if we can go about demilitarization without harming connectivity 
>>>> and what are the best remedies during war and conflict that we saw 
>>>> your initiative emerged. Which in my opinion included some people 
>>>> that thought sanctions should be imposed and some believed that 
>>>> sanctions should not be imposed or if imposed should be imposed in 
>>>> a certain way so they came up with this tortured document that can 
>>>> be contradictory even. All with good intentions. No doubt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     > 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<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
>>>>     licensehttps://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/01/13/icanns-jurisdiction-sanctions-and-domain-names/<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/<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/<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/<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://ensa.fi/papers/403forbidden_imc18.pdf>,https://digitalmedusa.org/sanctions-global-internet-connectivity-and-content-delivery-networks/<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 ofa 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,
>>>>
>>>>     Could you elaborate what you mean with this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In conferences, sometimes when people want to promote their own 
>>>> papers and writings, they make a joke that they are sorry for 
>>>> shameless self-promotion or shameless publicity. But I am not sorry 
>>>> for promoting these materials. Because obviously some even think we 
>>>> have not been focussing and discussing sanctions until now! Hope 
>>>> that is enough elaboration .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     > 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.
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>
>>>>     In the resources above you describe there are two major problems:
>>>>
>>>>     1. Civilians are more impacted by sanctions than institutions
>>>>     2. Companies over-comply, resulting in more harm and less
>>>>     precise sanctions.
>>>>
>>>>     I think point 2. is relatively easily addressed if the
>>>>     implementation 100% operationalizable as it was intended
>>>>     (through BGP and RPZ). Point 1. depends on the design of the
>>>>     sanctions, which can be even better designed if that is done in
>>>>     collaboration with the implementers, correct?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, reducing years of work to two points and then providing some 
>>>> ambiguous technical solution is not my favorite approach to things. 
>>>> Could you tell me how your implementation through BGP and RPZ would 
>>>> work that could address civilians being impacted. And I suppose you 
>>>> mean military organizations, not just "institutions". From the 
>>>> outside looking in, your list is going to be more about who has the 
>>>> AS than what the network behavior is. Which will have 
>>>> devastating effects for the Internet. But I would be happy to hear 
>>>> more.
>>>> As for sanctions to be done in collaboration with the implementers 
>>>> (you mean those who have to comply with sanctions), you won't be 
>>>> able to do that because "sanctions" are laws and regulatory 
>>>> approaches and the governments will not share that power with 
>>>> others. Sanction regimes have been in place for years, you can't 
>>>> tell the govs to ditch their regime and come participate in your 
>>>> multistakeholder circle, it is already the law of land. If you 
>>>> wanted to tell how companies should comply with sanctions, then 
>>>> that would have been a nice initiative (I won't comment on 
>>>> effectiveness, I don't think the legal counsels would have allowed 
>>>> their companies to join!). But this initiative wants to impose 
>>>> sanctions in a nice way. It's like coming up with a jail system and 
>>>> say mine is nicer cause it's private, voluntary and multistakeholder.
>>>> This initiative has nothing new but the word "multistakeholder" in 
>>>> it. It's even debatable whether that's new because we actually 
>>>> practiced "multistakeholder" compliance with sanctions at ICANN.
>>>> Governments have taken the list-based approach for years. 
>>>> Governments have even tried to bring due process to the unfair 
>>>> decisions, both by issuing general licenses and waivers as well as 
>>>> providing a judicial system! The unintended consequences of 
>>>> sanction regimes are plenty which this group cannot address with 
>>>> its current design, and boycott at the infrastructure level can 
>>>> lead to discrimination and harming connectivity and not necessarily 
>>>> to demilitarization of the Internet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Especially since multistakeholder sanctions (or boycott if you
>>>>     will) could be designed with those who implement it, and there
>>>>     they could also be relatively easy reversed or adapted.
>>>>
>>>>     Best,
>>>>
>>>>     Niels
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 11:54 AM Mallory Knodel
>>>>     <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     >
>>>>     >     On Monday, March 14, 2022, S Moonesamy
>>>>     <[e-mail]
>>>>     <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>>>>     <mailto:[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<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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>     >
>>>>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc<https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>
>>>>     >
>>>>     >
>>>>     > _______________________________________________
>>>>     > hrpc mailing list
>>>>     >[e-mail]
>>>>     >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:[e-mail]
>>>>     T: @nielstenoever
>>>>     P/S/WA: [phone]
>>>>     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
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     hrpc mailing list
>>>>     [e-mail]
>>>>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> hrpc mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> hrpc mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>> _______________________________________________
>> hrpc mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>