Re: [hrpc] Censorship

[Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>]

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.

> 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 license 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/>
> 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?

> 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?

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]>> 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