[Community-Discuss] [rpd] Controversial anti-shutdown policy discussed at RIPE

[Walubengo J]

haahaaa, am not sure :-).
But I guess to me 'legitimate aims' may vary country by country.  But most countries would define these legitimate aims around the 'National Security' umbrella. Which ties into the second point - is it covered/prescribed in law?
So as long as the country has negotiated how and when to shut down their communication services/Internet, and  backed this up that in their Acts of parliament then  AfriNIC has no business getting involved, however crude that law maybe :-).
The last point 'necessary and proportionate' ensures that such shutdowns if they must happen are moderated in terms of duration, coverage or service type.
At the end of the day we can say most governments are never right when it comes to shutdowns, but that is not the same as assuming that Afrinic policies will always be right on internet shutdowns.  
There must be shared checks and balances often brokered by courts of law.
walu. 

      From: Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke>
 To: Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Ish Sookun <ish at lsl.digital>; General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>; rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
 Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 6:53 PM
 Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Controversial anti-shutdown policy discussed at RIPE
   
@Walu
What, pray is Legitimate Aim'? :-)
AliHusseinPrincipalHussein & Associates Tel: +254 713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing,Chiromo Road, Westlands,Nairobi, Kenya.
Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com> wrote:

Those lawyers dealing Internet rights suggest that Internet rights could be violated only if the following three conditions apply:
a) The shutdown must serve legitimate aimb) The shutdown is supported/established by (domestic or international) lawc) The shutdown is necessary and proportionate.
walu.

      From: Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke>
 To: Ish Sookun <ish at lsl.digital> 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net >; rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
 Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 11:06 AM
 Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Controversial anti-shutdown policy discussed at RIPE
   
Ish
Protests are an expression of freedom of association and speech. Shutting down the Internet because people are protesting is unjustified. The very Governments that are elected by the people should be responsible to the people. I can see where in some extreme (really extreme) circumstances where shut downs maybe be necessary. However, mechanisms MUST be put in place from the onset to justify such. And this must be a Multi- Stakeholder Consensus Building Mechanism where NATIONAL SECURITY is truly in jeopardy. 

Ali HusseinPrincipalHussein & Associates+254 0713 601113 
Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin. com/in/alihkassim
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit."  ~ Aristotle

Sent from my iPad
On 15 May 2017, at 9:37 AM, Ish Sookun <ish at lsl.digital> wrote:


Hi Ali,

On 14/05/17 19:43, Ali Hussein wrote:

I've been following this discourse for a few days and I'm getting the feeling that no one in the community is supporting a shut down right? 


I would not say no one is supporting a shutdown. The discussions on the
RPD list prompted that some found it justified for the government to
shut down the internet because of riots & protests. I am not saying
whether they are right or wrong, but merely citing what I read from the
list.

Regards,

Ish Sookun

______________________________ _________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/ mailman/listinfo/rpd


   



   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20170519/80372e53/attachment.html>