The role of Internet governance in sanctions
I very much thank all of you who participated in this drafting effort, and I’m really happy that the document is out: https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet... Now we can focus on operationalization. Mailing list, web site, etc. are in the process of being set up. The goal is to have a minimal, lightweight mechanism with BGP and RPZ feeds that networks can voluntarily subscribe to. 99% of the time, they’d be empty. Occasionally, when the Internet community believes that a military or propaganda agency is problematic enough to be worth sanctioning, IPs and domains would be added to the feed. The mechanism is exactly the same as is currently used for blackholing abuse IPs and domains, so doesn’t take anything new on the subscribing network’s side, just one more feed. We’re anticipating that debate over what goes into the list will only happen very occasionally, and the discussion list will be quiet the rest of the time. A lot like NSP-Sec and Outages. And there’ll probably be a lot of overlap with those groups. All are welcome, look for an announcement in a few more days. Thanks, -Bill
while i abhor the russian invasion of the ukraine, and have put my money where my mouth is </virtue-signaling>, i worry about the precedent of setting ourselves up as legislature, police, judge, and jury, and the long term effects of centralizing such authority. who will we censor and ostracize next? a walt kelly cartoon comes to mind[0]. otoh, i would likely close such meager services as i provide to russian use. randy --- 0 - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=we+have+met+the+enemy+and+he+is+us&t=h_&ia=web
On Mar 10, 2022, at 1:24 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote: while i abhor the russian invasion of the ukraine, and have put my money where my mouth is
(As an aside to others, our friends at the .UA ccTLD have recommended this as a useful place to donate: https://www.comebackalive.in.ua/donate It’s providing medical support to combatants.)
i worry about the precedent of setting ourselves up as legislature, police, judge, and jury
We do this with spam, malware and phishing every day. The people who were trying to benefit from the campaigns are very unhappy about it, but everyone else seems pleased with the outcome or, if anything, wants it to be even more effective.
...and the long term effects of centralizing such authority.
This is the Internet… when we do it right, nothing that matters is centralized. There are dozens of spam, ddos, cp and malware BGP and RPZ feeds right now. Some are better-administered than others, but I wouldn’t call any of them an “authority,” nor do I worry about them becoming centralized. This is no different.
who will we censor and ostracize next? a walt kelly cartoon comes to mind.
I view it more like their rowboat… A different name every time, but not often, never more than one, and never remarkable enough to warrant notice by the actors.
otoh, i would likely close such meager services as i provide to russian use.
Indeed. And I suspect the judgment of many network operators will be similar. With a principled constraint that only military and propaganda networks will be included in the feed, I’m not too worried about this turning into fascism. -Bill
maybe it is just that i am sufficiently anti-authoritarian that i try not to have the hubris to set myself up as the authority. maybe that in itself is hubris. as i was raised by someone who was a conscious objector in ww2, i can not bring myself to contribute to weapons etc. so i have donated to folk such as https://razomforukraine.org/ which is focused on medical support. randy
In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document: “Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are potential targets of sanctions.” What is a “propaganda agency”. A political party? An incumbent candidate for re-election? The IRS? Anyone the “majority” disagrees with? Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates. I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential for unintended consequences is huge, as is the potential for intended, politically-driven consequences -mel beckman
On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:03 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
maybe it is just that i am sufficiently anti-authoritarian that i try not to have the hubris to set myself up as the authority. maybe that in itself is hubris.
as i was raised by someone who was a conscious objector in ww2, i can not bring myself to contribute to weapons etc. so i have donated to folk such as https://razomforukraine.org/ which is focused on medical support.
randy
I respect the people and goals here, but strongly echo Mel's statement. This is a much larger hammer then mail filtering lists. -jim On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 11:26 AM Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document:
“Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are potential targets of sanctions.”
What is a “propaganda agency”. A political party? An incumbent candidate for re-election? The IRS? Anyone the “majority” disagrees with?
Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates.
I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential for unintended consequences is huge, as is the potential for intended, politically-driven consequences
-mel beckman
On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:03 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
maybe it is just that i am sufficiently anti-authoritarian that i try not to have the hubris to set myself up as the authority. maybe that in itself is hubris.
as i was raised by someone who was a conscious objector in ww2, i can not bring myself to contribute to weapons etc. so i have donated to folk such as https://razomforukraine.org/ which is focused on medical support.
randy
+1 mh 10 mars 2022 16:34 "jim deleskie" <deleskie@gmail.com (mailto:deleskie@gmail.com?to=%22jim%20deleskie%22%20<deleskie@gmail.com>)> a écrit: I respect the people and goals here, but strongly echo Mel's statement. This is a much larger hammer then mail filtering lists. -jim On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 11:26 AM Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org (mailto:mel@beckman.org)> wrote: In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document: “Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are potential targets of sanctions.” What is a “propaganda agency”. A political party? An incumbent candidate for re-election? The IRS? Anyone the “majority” disagrees with? Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates. I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential for unintended consequences is huge, as is the potential for intended, politically-driven consequences -mel beckman
On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:03 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com (mailto:randy@psg.com)> wrote:
maybe it is just that i am sufficiently anti-authoritarian that i try not to have the hubris to set myself up as the authority. maybe that in itself is hubris.
as i was raised by someone who was a conscious objector in ww2, i can not bring myself to contribute to weapons etc. so i have donated to folk such as https://razomforukraine.org/ (https://razomforukraine.org/) which is focused on medical support.
randy
On Mar 10, 2022, at 4:25 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote: In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document: I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential for unintended consequences is huge.
It sounds like your problem statement and ours are the same. Pulling the plug on countries is inappropriate, because it has a lot of unintended consequences and harms people. -Bill
Bill, I don’t understand your comment. I don’t think our statements are the same at all. I’m opposed to this particular description of ad-hoc “social justice” in Internet governance described in your proposal. It’s far too broad and open to interpretation. You, on the other hand, seem to be referring to — correct me if I’m wrong — sovereign countries pulling the plug on their Internet access. The proposal you signed doesn’t address that, that I can see. It has a slew of incredibly vague terms, such as “international norms”, “consensus-driven process”, “principles of non-overreach”, and “pre-defined goals”, to list just a few. Your comments seems to take this proposal as a fait accompli, to wit "I’m really happy that the document is out. Now we can focus on operationalization. Mailing list, web site, etc. are in the process of being set up.” Slow your roll. This is nowhere near ready for “operationalization”, as the several comments here objecting to the thing testifies. -mel
On Mar 10, 2022, at 8:18 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Mar 10, 2022, at 4:25 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote: In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document: I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential for unintended consequences is huge.
It sounds like your problem statement and ours are the same. Pulling the plug on countries is inappropriate, because it has a lot of unintended consequences and harms people.
-Bill
On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:42 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote: I don’t understand your comment. I don’t think our statements are the same at all.
Perhaps not. My goal is to minimize Internet disconnection. Maybe that’s not your goal. I was trying to give what you wrote the most generous possible interpretation.
You, on the other hand, seem to be referring to — correct me if I’m wrong — sovereign countries pulling the plug on their Internet access.
Perhaps you’re misunderstanding, it’s difficult to tell. The current problem is “sovereign countries” disconnecting (or attempting to disconnect) other countries. That’s a lot of disconnection. That’s bad for people, and bad for business. I’m against that. It’s relatively simple.
The proposal you signed doesn’t address that, that I can see.
Perhaps read it again, then, since that’s the only thing it talks about. Reducing the amount of disconnection from whole countries to as near zero as can be achieved in the presence of “sovereign countries."
Slow your roll. This is nowhere near ready for “operationalization”, as the several comments here objecting to the thing testifies.
Putting aside matters of fact... Because a couple of people objecting to a document they haven’t actually read means that the rest of the industry has to put up with national-level disconnection? I’m pretty sure that’s not how the Internet works. But, you seem pretty certain you understand how things work better than I do. Perhaps you can explain it to us. -Bill
You’ve started implementation so a policy with virtually no public input on the day after making your proposal public. I’m pretty sure that’s not how the Internet works. -mel On Mar 10, 2022, at 11:38 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote: On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:42 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote: I don’t understand your comment. I don’t think our statements are the same at all. Perhaps not. My goal is to minimize Internet disconnection. Maybe that’s not your goal. I was trying to give what you wrote the most generous possible interpretation. You, on the other hand, seem to be referring to — correct me if I’m wrong — sovereign countries pulling the plug on their Internet access. Perhaps you’re misunderstanding, it’s difficult to tell. The current problem is “sovereign countries” disconnecting (or attempting to disconnect) other countries. That’s a lot of disconnection. That’s bad for people, and bad for business. I’m against that. It’s relatively simple. The proposal you signed doesn’t address that, that I can see. Perhaps read it again, then, since that’s the only thing it talks about. Reducing the amount of disconnection from whole countries to as near zero as can be achieved in the presence of “sovereign countries." Slow your roll. This is nowhere near ready for “operationalization”, as the several comments here objecting to the thing testifies. Putting aside matters of fact... Because a couple of people objecting to a document they haven’t actually read means that the rest of the industry has to put up with national-level disconnection? I’m pretty sure that’s not how the Internet works. But, you seem pretty certain you understand how things work better than I do. Perhaps you can explain it to us. -Bill
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 11:37 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The role of Internet governance in sanctions
Perhaps not. My goal is to minimize Internet disconnection. Maybe that’s not your goal. I was trying to give what you wrote the most generous possible interpretation.
There is no realistic way for these disconnects to happen now, as acknowledged by the fifth principal in the draft. How does creating a framework to accomplish this do anything other than increase the disconnects? Brandon
Dear NANOG-ers, Hope this email finds you in good health! Please see my comments below, inline... Le vendredi 11 mars 2022, Brandon Price <PriceB@sherwoodoregon.gov> a écrit :
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 11:37 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The role of Internet governance in sanctions
Perhaps not. My goal is to minimize Internet disconnection. Maybe that’s not your goal. I was trying to give what you wrote the most generous possible interpretation.
There is no realistic way for these disconnects to happen now, as acknowledged by the fifth principal in the draft. How does creating a framework to accomplish this do anything other than increase the disconnects?
Hi Brandon, Thanks for your email, brother! You put forward a good objection for this proposal. ...i think the proposal is a wise idea, but imho it can not touch the root-causes of the problem at hand. It seems to be the same approach as the anti-shutdown DPP (Draft Policy Proposal) [1]. __ [1]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/archive/anti-shutdown-02/amp> Applying sanctions to a country has side effects... :'-( To figure it out, one should look at the below scenario: ~°~ 1] This draft proposal reaches a rough consensus 2] A selection is done to build the Operational Team (OT) 3] The OT agrees on a rough consensus on the decision to apply specific sanctions on a given country government's Internet infrastructure used to spread their "propaganda" globaly... 4] The OT implements the consensual decision 5] The Internet's infrastructure of that ccGov is shutdown. No more trafic from it to the Internet! 6] That ccGov decides to cut the rest of the Internet's interconnexions of their country to the Internet... 7] The whole country is unreacheable from the Internet 8] That ccGov is the only source of "information" within their country boundaries 9] ... ~°~ As the draft proposal seems to target cc Governments, practically speaking, then what if the policy-decision to be implemented concerns the usGov? Thanks. Shalom, --sb.
Brandon
-- Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure> Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ #LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!» #MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
Sylvain, Thank you for posting this plausible scenario. It is this kind of bad effect that I’m concerned about. Consider also that the document doesn’t specify government specifically, only “agencies“, without defining what those are. I think it’s quite possible that a future operational team might decide that particular political party is an agency requiring sanctions. -mel via cell On Mar 11, 2022, at 6:21 AM, Sylvain Baya <abscoco@gmail.com> wrote: Dear NANOG-ers, Hope this email finds you in good health! Please see my comments below, inline... Le vendredi 11 mars 2022, Brandon Price <PriceB@sherwoodoregon.gov<mailto:PriceB@sherwoodoregon.gov>> a écrit : -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org<mailto:sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 11:37 AM To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The role of Internet governance in sanctions
Perhaps not. My goal is to minimize Internet disconnection. Maybe that’s not your goal. I was trying to give what you wrote the most generous possible interpretation.
There is no realistic way for these disconnects to happen now, as acknowledged by the fifth principal in the draft. How does creating a framework to accomplish this do anything other than increase the disconnects? Hi Brandon, Thanks for your email, brother! You put forward a good objection for this proposal. ...i think the proposal is a wise idea, but imho it can not touch the root-causes of the problem at hand. It seems to be the same approach as the anti-shutdown DPP (Draft Policy Proposal) [1]. __ [1]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/archive/anti-shutdown-02/amp> Applying sanctions to a country has side effects... :'-( To figure it out, one should look at the below scenario: ~°~ 1] This draft proposal reaches a rough consensus 2] A selection is done to build the Operational Team (OT) 3] The OT agrees on a rough consensus on the decision to apply specific sanctions on a given country government's Internet infrastructure used to spread their "propaganda" globaly... 4] The OT implements the consensual decision 5] The Internet's infrastructure of that ccGov is shutdown. No more trafic from it to the Internet! 6] That ccGov decides to cut the rest of the Internet's interconnexions of their country to the Internet... 7] The whole country is unreacheable from the Internet 8] That ccGov is the only source of "information" within their country boundaries 9] ... ~°~ As the draft proposal seems to target cc Governments, practically speaking, then what if the policy-decision to be implemented concerns the usGov? Thanks. Shalom, --sb. Brandon -- Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure> Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ #LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!» #MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates.
I agree with this as well. History has shown us that the smallest sliver of 'interpretation' is likely to eventually be twisted and exploited for a reason completely antithetical to the original intended purpose , given enough time. On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:26 AM Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document:
“Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are potential targets of sanctions.”
What is a “propaganda agency”. A political party? An incumbent candidate for re-election? The IRS? Anyone the “majority” disagrees with?
Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates.
I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential for unintended consequences is huge, as is the potential for intended, politically-driven consequences
-mel beckman
On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:03 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
maybe it is just that i am sufficiently anti-authoritarian that i try not to have the hubris to set myself up as the authority. maybe that in itself is hubris.
as i was raised by someone who was a conscious objector in ww2, i can not bring myself to contribute to weapons etc. so i have donated to folk such as https://razomforukraine.org/ which is focused on medical support.
randy
+1 e07 -mel via cell On Mar 10, 2022, at 8:46 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote: Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates. I agree with this as well. History has shown us that the smallest sliver of 'interpretation' is likely to eventually be twisted and exploited for a reason completely antithetical to the original intended purpose , given enough time. On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:26 AM Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> wrote: In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document: “Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are potential targets of sanctions.” What is a “propaganda agency”. A political party? An incumbent candidate for re-election? The IRS? Anyone the “majority” disagrees with? Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates. I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential for unintended consequences is huge, as is the potential for intended, politically-driven consequences -mel beckman
On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:03 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote:
maybe it is just that i am sufficiently anti-authoritarian that i try not to have the hubris to set myself up as the authority. maybe that in itself is hubris.
as i was raised by someone who was a conscious objector in ww2, i can not bring myself to contribute to weapons etc. so i have donated to folk such as https://razomforukraine.org/ which is focused on medical support.
randy
On March 10, 2022 at 15:25 mel@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) wrote:
In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document:
“Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are potential targets of sanctions.”
What is a “propaganda agency”. A political party? An incumbent candidate for re-election? The IRS? Anyone the “majority” disagrees with?
There is a notion of knowably lying for some specific effect such as commercial fraud. One can often prove someone was knowably lying by their other behavior or even just the low probability that they could possibly have believed what they claim. For example Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's claim that the Ukrainian hospital they just bombed had been empty for weeks and was being used as a Ukrainian militia base. This can not only be fact checked, but it could be shown to some reasonable certainty that Lavrov could not possibly believe his claims are true (Lavrov as a stand-in for the Russian govt, it's possible he's just parroting something he was given.) https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-says-mariupol-maternity-hospital-mili... Or perhaps not, but one could assess such a claim fairly without resorting to nihilistic vagaries like "who could know for sure?"
Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates.
I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential for unintended consequences is huge, as is the potential for intended, politically-driven consequences
I tend to agree with that last statement. Then again a counter-argument would be that the internet has already been weaponized, from infowars to using it to compromise, blackmail, and even destroy critical infrastructure.
-mel beckman
On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:03 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
maybe it is just that i am sufficiently anti-authoritarian that i try not to have the hubris to set myself up as the authority. maybe that in itself is hubris.
as i was raised by someone who was a conscious objector in ww2, i can not bring myself to contribute to weapons etc. so i have donated to folk such as https://razomforukraine.org/ which is focused on medical support.
randy
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
participants (9)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Brandon Price -
bzs＠theworld.com -
jim deleskie -
Mel Beckman -
Michael Hallgren -
Randy Bush -
Sylvain Baya -
Tom Beecher