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

Thu Apr 13 07:57:20 UTC 2017

Hi All,

Firstly - I need to thank each and every one of you for all the discussions so far and I believe that the discussions should continue as we seek a solution.

As you can see - the opinions on this list are wide and varied - and I do not believe that is a bad thing - it is a complex issue and pass or fail, the policy itself seems to have served as a catalyst for deep discussion which I believe this industry is ready for, and I hope to see these discussions continue in depth on the floor at the PDP.

Now, let me attempt to address some of the issues raised and the thinking of the authors behind much of this.

As we stated at the start of the policy - we realize and acknowledge that the measures proposed are draconian.  We also debated the issue of revocation of spare - and its perhaps something as I have said multiple times we can look at focusing or targeting more specifically to mitigate the concerns about unintended consequences.  What we need is some suggestions on this and some debate on this.

Then we get to the more fundamental question - what is the RIR's role in all of this.  There is a phrase by a guy called Edmund Burke, that says "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".  Now, for a long time, we have seen statements go out condemning the shutdowns.  It has had little or no effect.  We have waited in vain for "someone else" to act and protect the freedoms of the internet - freedoms which have been hard fought and hard won - but still the shutdowns continue.

Indeed - ISOC Cameroon came out with a statement in support of the shutdowns - in direct contrast to the condemnation of such by ISOC themselves.  If I'm correct, we're now 80+ days in, and still we see the targeting of a community through a shutdown.  In many cases we have also seen that communications blackouts are used to prevent the world seeing atrocities committed.  We can also point to what happens in places where there is little to no ability to get the word out.

As such, it was the authors feeling, in their own capacities, that it was time to examine the possibility of a new approach.  The internet is a core part of our lives, it drives economies, it is critical to the sustainability of any modern country, and an attack on the internet is an attack on the people.  So that leaves us contemplating - do we attempt to use the view tools we have to stand up and take a stance and chip away at this issue - or do we turn around and say that it isn't our problem, and someone else must deal with it - in the vague hope that these other entities are not in turn turning around saying that it is someone else's problem in a continuous circle so that nothing gets done and the problem gets deeper and more frequent.

Speaking for myself, and not for my other co-authors, I have always believed that in life, you cannot solve every problem, and often the solutions and the methods you use are far from perfect, but you cannot wait for a utopian solution, because you will never find it.  So you use every tool available to fight for those causes that you believe in, you use the resources you have to affect change where change is necessary.  Such is policy in the RIR world, it is one of many potential options. 

As such, yes, I believe strongly that we SHOULD take a stance.  I equate this to a man walking down the street and seeing an innocent being attacked.  At that point the man has an option, he can keep walking and close his eyes and say, it's not my problem - the police will deal with it, or he can intervene.  If he takes the former option, and the police act, that’s great, however, if the police don't show up, then the crime continues and I argue at that point, the individual becomes complicit through his lack of action.

Having discussed this policy at great length with many many people before we put it out there - the decision was taken to put this out there to stimulate the debate, and to see if we COULD take some action, to raise the question, what IS the role of the RIR's and other internet organisations when it comes to abuses, or should we close our eyes and hope for someone else to deal with it - and are we prepared to acknowledge at that point that through our lack of action we potentially become complicit.

The authors have no desire to turn off anyone's internet - we have no desire to punish the people - we are aware that what we are proposing is controversial and that it has far reaching ramifications - but try we must - and in our attempts, we are hoping that the community can work with us to find a BETTER solution than the one we propose  - that the community can add input, change the wording, if need be rewrite the entire policy from scratch with us - but let us do SOMETHING, rather than turning a blind eye and saying this is someone else's problem.  Let us not live in the hypothetical of what if someone else did it, or what if someone else intervened, let us strive for a concrete action and concrete message, in whatever form that action takes.

These are our thoughts - let the debate continue - both here and on the floor in Nairobi.  We welcome the diverse opinions, and we encourage more people to stand up and speak as we work towards the true end goal - the protection of our freedoms and of our speech and of our industry.  The protection not only for the ISP's but the consumer on the ground.

We look forward to reading further discussions and getting further input.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Kyle Spencer [mailto:kyle at stormzero.com] 
Sent: 13 April 2017 10:26
To: Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>
Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] New Policy Proposal - "Anti-Shutdown (AFPUB-2017-GEN-001-DRAFT-01)"

"Not really. The Policy is intended to affect the people/departments/decision makers that are actually causing a shutdown to happen.
i.e. - not Universities, Hospitals, Businesses or Joe Public."

How will this policy make such a distinction in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti?

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:
> Not really. The Policy is intended to affect the 
> people/departments/decision makers that are actually causing a shutdown to happen.
> i.e. - not Universities, Hospitals, Businesses or Joe Public.
>
> If the Government were also to suddenly change (Arab Spring style) 
> then the ban would also presumably be immediately lifted.
>
> After all - what is the point of AFRINIC (whose fundamental role is to 
> promote Internet growth and penetration in Africa) servicing 
> governments who don't allow the people to have Internet service, or 
> who keep switching it off.
>
> ps. Can someone point me to an article or two that explains the reason 
> why the anglophones have been denied Internet in the Cameroon.
>
>
> On 12/04/2017 20:09, Honest Ornella GANKPA wrote:
>
> +1 Maya
>
> So in order to stop internet shutdowns by governments, AFRINIC (whose 
> fundamental role is to promote Internet growth and penetration in 
> Africa), will now further punish the same community it serves by 
> shutting down ISP's and alienating the target governments?
>
> How does that work? (genuine question)
>
>
>
> Honest Ornella GANKPA
>
>
>
> 2017-04-12 9:46 GMT+01:00 Maye Diop <mayediop at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Dear All,
>> We all accept that this is a big issue and Even if AfGWG does not 
>> have any interference with policy, I would like to remind tthat one 
>> Objective of the Working Group is To strengthen the collaboration 
>> between AFRINIC and African Governments and Regulators to promote 
>> sustainable and secure Internet development in Africa.
>> Putting in place a discriminatory policy for Government and privating 
>> a country of ressources will  neither help to involve more government 
>> on AFRINIC activities to help them to better understand nor bring any 
>> change if they decided to take decisions to shutdown Internet.
>> I'll vote for a dedicated high worklevel shop to raise this issue at 
>> regional level.
>> Best Regards
>>
>> 2017-04-12 5:28 GMT+00:00 Vymala <vymala at afrinic.net>:
>>>
>>> Hello Barrack
>>>
>>> , i would be keen to understand whether the same has gone through 
>>> the AFRINIC  Government working group as Seun has indicated and 
>>> their views on the same,
>>>
>>> As you know the Community draft Proposals and Policies and AFRINIC 
>>> does not interfere in any case in the process.
>>> In this case the  "Anti-Shutdown (AFPUB-2017-GEN-001-DRAFT-01)” is 
>>> addressing Internet Shutdown and concerns Governments.
>>>
>>> There is no policy or proposal that needs to be validated by the 
>>> AFRINIC Government Working Group as the AfGWG is a closed and 
>>> dedicated forum for Governments, Regulators and LEA’s to discuss on 
>>> opportunities and challenges they are facing with regards to the 
>>> Internet Development in Africa amongst other.
>>>
>>> I hope this clear your question.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> vymala
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Apr 2017, at 6:55 AM, Barrack Otieno 
>>> <otieno.barrack at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi colleagues,
>>>
>>> Interesting proposal, given the role of governments in our 
>>> eco-system , i would be keen to understand whether the same has gone 
>>> through the AFRINIC Government working group as Seun has indicated 
>>> and their views on the same, i think we should endeavour to keep the 
>>> Internet on at all costs, any punitive measure that can result in 
>>> switching off the Internet or denying users access in any part of the world is not ideal in my humble opinion.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2017 1:52 AM, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" <kn at millenium.net.mu>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Moonesawmy
>>>>
>>>> >In Section 1 of AFPUB-2017-GEN-001-DRAFT-01, it is stated that 
>>>> >"these shutdowns have been shown to cause economic damage".  Could 
>>>> >you please provide some data about the economic damage?
>>>>
>>>> I confine myself within bounds better suited to my own capacity, 
>>>> perhaps this could help?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/intenet-shutdo
>>>> wns-v-3.pdf
>>>>
>>>> >What is the meaning of "direct provable relationships" in Section 13.1?
>>>>
>>>> It is my belief that you should unsubscribe from this list since 
>>>> you were unable to understand the basic meaning of whatever you quoted above.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------
>> Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
>> Spécialiste ICT4D
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> --
> Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
> mje at posix.co.za       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>

--
Cell/WhatsApp/Signal: +256790884905

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