Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] New Policy Proposal - "Anti-Shutdown (AFPUB-2017-GEN-001-DRAFT-01)"

sm+afrinic at sm+afrinic at
Wed Apr 12 08:53:44 UTC 2017

Hi Andrew,
At 20:15 11-04-2017, Andrew Alston wrote:
>Firstly, there is no link between the statement 
>issued by the board of directors and this 
>policy.  This policy was written by individuals 
>who have strong views on the subject and have a 
>belief in standing for a free and open 
>internet.  It was driven by what we are seeing 
>happening around the globe and the ever 
>increasing violation of the what we consider a 
>human right, the access to be able to communicate freely and openly.


>Secondly, on the economic damage, as was already posted, please see

I read the document.  Page 1 of the document 
quotes a 2015 report from a trade association in 
the United States as follows: "the web generates 
around $966 billion in the United States".  I am 
interested in the economic damage to African 
companies as the discussion is about a regional 
proposal.  The document cites a five paragraph 
article written by the Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development in 2011 about the 
economic impact of shutting down Internet and 
mobile phone services in Egypt.  I could not 
verify whether the estimate is accurate.

According to a fact sheet published by Afrinic, 
the company has a fully operational disaster 
recovery centre in Egypt which is co-located with 
the Egyptian Ministry of Communication and 
Information Technology.  According to Ahram 
Online, there was three telecommunication 
companies and internet providers operating in 
Egypt which "performed a series of experiments on 
how to severe connections as early as April 2008" [1].

Has Afrinic assessed whether it is an 
operationally sound decision to have a disaster 
recovery centre in a location where there has been an internet shutdown?

>With regards to your third question ­ that 
>particular clause is an interesting one ­ and we 
>are quite open to a better definition there ­ 
>what we were attempting to do was ensure that 
>states who lost their resources couldn't simply 
>do an end run around the policy by using third 
>party organizations for supply of said 
>resources.  It is not the ideal wording for that 
>clause and it probably needs some wordsmithing, 
>and we're open to ideas, but the idea is to 
>ensure that those who attempt to assist 
>government in making a run around the policy 
>face consequences as well.  Let us debate how we can best accomplish this.

I'll send some text for the definition in about a 
week.  Meanwhile, I'll make a quick 
comment.    The text in the proposal does not 
match the intent which is described above.  As an 
example, there is currently a direct relationship 
between Afrinic and an IXP.  The text could be 
interpreted as meaning that Afrinic would no 
longer be allowed to allocate number resources to 
itself.  That is in line with Section 2 which 
states that "the time has come for action to be 
taken, rather than just bland statements that 
have shown to have little or no effect".

It would be good to have the debate in a regional 
venue instead of talking about the matter in 
countries outside Africa.  I am currently neutral on the proposal.

S. Moonesamy


More information about the RPD mailing list