Re: [hrpc] Censorship

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Bill,

The reason I believe that this RG is an appropriate venue to discuss 
your communique is that each of the assertions you and others make seem 
to me closer to research questions.  Full disclosure: my own view is 
that *if* the Internet community could effectively contribute to forcing 
Russia out of Ukraine, we have a moral obligation to do so.  However, I 
don't believe we can effectively contribute to that goal at the 
governance level, and maybe not at any other level.

Your assertions are:

>  *
>
>     ● Disconnecting the population of a country from the Internet is a
>     disproportionate and inappropriate sanction, since it hampers
>     their access to the very information that might lead them to
>     withdraw support for acts of war and leaves them with access to
>     only the information their own government chooses to furnish.
>
This is indeed the theory.  Nothing like a live experiment to test it.  
Anyone collecting data?


>  *
>
>     ● The effectiveness of sanctions should be evaluated relative to
>     predefined goals. Ineffective sanctions waste effort and willpower
>     and convey neither unity nor conviction.
>
There's a lot of devil hidden in the detail of "predefined goals", and 
there is a body of research around this.  Also, it doesn't follow that 
ineffective sanctions fail to convey unity or conviction.  If the goal 
is to get Russia out of Ukraine and they don't leave, does that mean 
that the west has failed to convey conviction?


>  *
>
>     ● Sanctions should be focused and precise. They should minimize
>     the chance of unintended consequences or collateral damage.
>     Disproportionate or over-broad sanctions risk fundamentally
>     alienating populations.
>
Again, there is a body of research around this.


>  *
>
>     ● Military and propaganda agencies and their information
>     infrastructure are potential targets of sanctions.
>
Is this meant to be an exclusive list?


>  *
>
>     ● The Internet, due to its transnational nature and
>     consensus-driven multistakeholder system of governance, currently
>     does not easily lend itself to the imposition of sanctions in
>     national conflicts.
>
I have my own view as to why this is true.  But it may be worth 
elaborating in detail.


>  *
>
>     ● It is inappropriate and counterproductive for governments to
>     attempt to compel Internet governance mechanisms to impose
>     sanctions outside of the community’s multistakeholder
>     decision-making process.
>
Yeah, this requires a discussion of supremecy and subservience. Who is 
supreme and why and where are the guns to back that up?


>  *
>
>     ● There are nonetheless appropriate, effective, and specific
>     sanctions the Internet governance community may wish to consider
>     in its deliberative processes.
>
Elaborate.