IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hrpc] Censorship

Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> Fri, 11 March 2022 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <woody@pch.net>
X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877EC3A08D0 for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 08:51:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pch.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JWJa4Vz1KJhS for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 08:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pch.net (keriomail.pch.net [206.220.231.84]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD4523A08D3 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 08:50:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=pch.net; s=mail; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to: references; bh=IjhQtdX0NGklMmCF7i02B91Xhr2RNod+ZUlQfzfZ7YE=; b=kO50Rbs+uAEvXxtNh+6jsNcpudeehmzJvQgDgT9bTp5ATGK6u2kSMrwhtVaYGVFW8obDsLRaQXAtN kKplI4xK9fcDx8IKo0UKpaP+v4oTbe7IgOL1LPJmjPQInXUyQvZvp9Svm0CYHuQudhDAUeaM1q5pIr FfhTbSD/Ck/KL6oFz/7QC1E1DL80BHJhf1SSha+J7IJOne8hDtmBhg+qy8np7nnVQGzUqskvmWpQqS sYax1IhWJ9pX5/gvbVe48/PhLiqfRVeyFQmxKuj2dt0L2rPikV+Iiytp7AsmgPIfz+iepMmG1EBxal yrRIdg5jEqS/4yDtF1k1pNH1VOGoHvg==
X-Footer: cGNoLm5ldA==
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([69.166.14.6]) by mail.pch.net (Kerio Connect 9.2.7 patch 3) with ESMTPS (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) for hrpc@irtf.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 08:50:55 -0800
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6C4CE35A-855E-466B-89B2-A1B1755C6E6A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 17:50:50 +0100
References: <669686052.184329.1646989079672@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <9f5fefa4-297f-5930-4ed1-354279b5d2dc@cs.tcd.ie> <FAFC98CE-1895-47F3-93E6-6A6ED8F7DB56@pch.net> <6eb8fdc2-a4ff-45a7-49af-ff324ce0f0dc@cs.tcd.ie>
To: "hrpc@irtf.org" <hrpc@irtf.org>
In-Reply-To: <6eb8fdc2-a4ff-45a7-49af-ff324ce0f0dc@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-Id: <D09BA722-9251-462C-93E4-5DDF4B6BD667@pch.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/QkoYtuqIqihsk-FXsyNpGS6h3-c>
Subject: Re: [hrpc] Censorship
X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: hrpc discussion list <hrpc.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/>
List-Post: <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 16:51:03 -0000


> On Mar 11, 2022, at 5:40 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>> So, just block everybody and let god sort them out?
> 
> Not what I said, nor implied.

You appeared to be comparing to a hypothetical reality in which the alternative was fewer sanctions, which has never actually obtained.  So arguments based on that premise would not be in good faith.

>> Because that’s the status quo, and the problem we’re trying to fix.
> 
> I'm just pretty unconvinced it’s a good plan.

So what would the characteristics of a better plan be?  More parties sanctioned?  Do you believe that governments could be convinced to accept _fewer_ parties sanctioned?

                                -Bill

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email