[rpd] Anti-Shutdown (AFPUB-2017-GEN-001-DRAFT-01)

[selven at hackers.mu]

Hi everyone,

    Ish, I went through your mail While your first point made sense, I
found a
few things which I don't particularly agree with.

I quote:
"(ii) in 2014 when the government failed in renewal negotiations of
gov.mu and possibly asked [1][2] a local ISP to continue resolve gov.mu
through its name servers."


On the afrinic DNS support page,
https://www.afrinic.net/en/initiatives/dns-support:

I quote:
"AFRINIC will not manage zones, nor be responsible for their content but
will merely act as a slave/secondary service provider, and only serve zone
data replicated from, and published by the zone’s master/primary server."

And they are correct, this responsibility should never reside on the hands
of an RiR.

In the case you mentioned (quoted above), if an entity forgot to pay his
dues to a registrar.
It is obvious the registrar will stop the service being provided.

Should an RiR get involved in the registrar's day to day business?

Did that country really try to prevent access to the internet or part of it?
Nopes, they infact ensured people still had access to their government
portal. There was no censoring, so this is out of context. No access to a
governmental portal is costly to an economy. This was never forced down on
any ISP.


Furthermore,

Ish's definition:"2.9 Internet Shutdown: A government ordered blocking
access to the
general or part of the internet. Said definition does not preclude a
government from censoring content that is not legally permissible within
the laws of said country, on the provision that said censorship is
pursuant to a court order.
"

Andrew, Ben & Fiona's definition:"2.9 Internet Shutdown: A government
ordered blocking access to the general internet. Said definition does not
preclude a government from censoring content that is not legally
permissible within the laws of said country, on the provision that said
censorship does not include a law that says “All content irrespective of
its source or its nature”."


I believe the definition placed forward by Andrew, Ben and Fiona is
CORRECT. Because this line "said definition does not preclude a government
from censoring content that is not legally permissible within the laws of
said country, on the provision that said censorship is
pursuant to a court order" from Ish definition introduces these flaws as
follows:

1. Censoring content where speed is important won't work. e.g try blocking
pedophilia contents while waiting for a court order, By the time you get
the court order, an illegal content is already in the system.

2. Without that "All content irrespective of its source or its nature"
clause, you can end up with government's going wild blocking twitter for
example if there was one specific tweet which is illegal in a country,
they decide to block the entire server, that will be very wrong.




Sincerely,

Pirabarlen Cheenaramen
Founder hackers.mu™