Search RPD Archives
woody at pch.net
Fri Jun 9 19:59:42 UTC 2017
I surmise that Chevalier is suggesting that I claim that the the UN would not have chosen to discuss the shutdown issue but for the AfriNIC policy proposal; I do not in fact make such a claim.
I just thought that people would be interested to see that the discussion is happening in the UN; that AccessNow is actively driving the process forward; and I independently related the fact that a number of people in other fora (most recently the CyCon meeting in Estonia last week) had expressed interest in the issue, and been pleasantly surprised to find it being brought forward by the AfriNIC discussion.
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Boubakar Barry <boubakarbarry at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm struggling to understand this statement.
> But I must confess, my English is very limited. Any chance for a clearer statement?
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Chevalier du Borg <virtual.borg at gmail.com> wrote:
> let us find some ways to claim that UN would be discuss this if Andrew, Fiona and Ben had not 'abuse' our sacred PDP!
> 2017-06-09 21:04 GMT+04:00 Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>:
> Apropos this topic, a discussion of the issue (not the AfriNIC proposal, but the shutdown issue itself) is scheduled for an upcoming UN meeting:
> So, putting aside the question of whether AfriNIC policy is the place to finally enact a change, I think it’s been incredibly valuable to have the conversation, and that having the conversation has drawn favorable attention to the fact that Africa has an active Internet governance policymaking body.
More information about the RPD