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

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

Ish Sookun ish at
Sat May 13 19:43:55 UTC 2017

Hi David,

On 13/05/17 12:35, David Conrad wrote:
> What Steve Crocker said during the RIPE meeting was not wrong: ICANN is a multi-stakeholder organization, the ccNSO would probably be the place a policy about punishing governments by removing ccTLDs from the root would be initiated, and if someone wants to pursue a policy proposal, regardless of how unlikely it will be to reach consensus within the community, the ICANN organization will facilitate: that is the role of the ICANN organization.
> However, what Tutu appears to imply, namely that Steve or ICANN supports or endorses the anti-shutdown proposal, is simply wrong.  Having spoken with Steve here in Madrid at the ICANN DNS Symposium just a few minutes ago, I can assure you he is NOT supportive of the proposal.

Yes, I agree, *implying* that ICANN supports the proposal is wrong. My
question was whether Tutu is saying the "Chair of ICANN" is wrong for
Dr. Crocker offering his help to one of the authors. A help is not an
endorsement and I understand that.

On the other hand, however, wouldn't it "imply" discouragement if ICANN
staff shows their non-support?

IMHO Andrew is open to suggestions and awaits that the community
proposes ways to address the "internet shutdowns" while limiting
collateral damage. I watched the RIPE 74 video. Andrew stressed several
times that the proposal is not perfect and they are open to suggestions.

The proposal can be broken down in two parts:

  (i) internet shutdown definition,
  (ii) sanctions.

As per my understanding, people are rushing to conclusion and opposing
the proposal just by considering the "sanctions" part. Does the sanction
part necessarily be removal of resources from the government?

The aim the proposal is to discourage internet shutdowns.

I proposed the authors the following definition change to be able to
cover wider censorship and governments be required legal means if they
are to censor communication in a country:

  "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."

The debate seems to focus more on whether "this is our problem or not"
rather than improving the proposal to address the problem.


Ish Sookun

More information about the RPD mailing list