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

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

Tutu Ngcaba pan.afrikhan at
Fri May 12 13:06:24 UTC 2017

Brother David Conrad

I thank you for a long email and explaination which i will 100% agree with
you David.

I will not respond now to btother Owen as you got idea i was about to say
about government of our Africa which is angry at the Afrinic actionz and
decide to punish ISP furthers which makes worse for end user.

You know even the government can deny you license to work as ISP or Mobile
company when some people will use social media badly to send the message
which will cause chaos.

So the people of this proposal clearly they dont even think how it impact
the internet freedom itselft. Very sad.

Best Regards,

Tutu Ngcaba
Kwazulu Techno Hubs
South Africa

On 12 May 2017 3:36 p.m., "David Conrad" <drc at> wrote:

> Hi,
> While I am ICANN's CTO, in this context I speak only for myself, but do so
> with a bit of background in creating and running a Regional Internet
> Registry and formerly being responsible for the IANA functions. I have
> hesitated to comment on this thread as I am not a resource holder in the
> AfriNIC region, but at the suggestion that ICANN can "help", I felt
> compelled to say something.
> Then again, when the Chairman of ICANN stands up and says that ICANN can
> help.
> "Hi, my name is Steve Crocker, I am Chairman of ICANN and I'm here to help
> you. (Regarding) take out of the root the affected ccTLD names" and he then
> volunteered assistance from ICANN staff - also saying it would take between
> two and five years to get to a decision whether to proceed or not.
> I believe Dr. Crocker was attempting to point out that developing this
> sort of policy will require a very (very) unlikely consensus of a large
> array of stakeholders (including governments) and it will take a very
> (very) long time to get to a point where the policy would even be
> considered, much less implemented.
> For a bit of context, I believe the last PDP in the ccNSO (the group at
> ICANN that develops policy for ccTLDs) took about 9 years (depending on how
> you measure). Perhaps relevantly, there is no policy to remove a ccTLD from
> the root (aka "retiring the ccTLD") and the ccTLD community is now working
> on the policy to do just that. Personally, I'd be surprised if that PDP
> took less time.
> However, to be clear, if a stakeholder in the ICANN community would like
> to make a proposal along these lines, the ICANN organization's job is to
> facilitate the policy definition process for that proposal, regardless of
> whether we (ICANN staff) think the proposal will ever or could ever get
> consensus.
> The current policy concept does not go that far - but to me - certainly
> suggests that the idea of punitive actions against governments is worth
> looking at.
> IMHO, it's worth looking at only in the sense of "here is an example of a
> really bad idea."
> The concept that a private organization providing a service in the public
> interest at the direction of the community for the benefit of the community
> can apply punitive actions against a governments, some of which are members
> of that community, is a great way to make that private organization
> irrelevant.
> If AfriNIC chooses to refuse to allocate address space in response to a
> valid request as a punitive measure, they are violating the basic tenets by
> which AfriNIC was created. The RIRs are a resource distribution mechanism
> that serves as a way of avoiding a myriad of bilateral arrangements that
> would be necessary to document which network operator holds/announces which
> addresses. The RIRs are NOT a police force and have no mandate to punish
> governments. An attempt to convert AfriNIC into the Internet police will
> result in a fracturing of the rough consensus by which AfriNIC exists.
> Further, this proposal, if enacted, will likely cause network operators in
> countries impacted by a shutdown to be forced to choose between abiding by
> the laws of their country and the policies of AfriNIC. If a government
> imposes a shutdown and is punished by AfriNIC, that government may choose
> to squat on address space and pass laws that force ISPs within that country
> to abide by that squatting or they'll simply go to the secondary market. In
> both cases, this proposal risks making AfriNIC irrelevant and/or damaging
> the global distributed registration database. Never forget participation in
> the RIR system is entirely voluntary -- it only works because network
> operators agrees it works. Make it challenging for those network operators
> and they'll find other ways to have their needs met.
> FWIW, while I personally understand the concerns that led to the
> anti-shutdown proposal, I believe the concept of using AfriNIC as a weapon
> to punish governments is fundamentally flawed.
> Regards,
> -drc
> (speaking only for myself)
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list