[kictanet] ANTI-SHUTDOWN-01 Policy

[Andrew Alston]

McTim,

And that is truly where the debate is yes, and the opinions seem pretty diverse.

Do we think the original draft of the policy in its pure form would work?  Probably not – we know that It needs refinement and work – we knew going into this that that was the case – and we’re hoping the communities give us the input needed to make it workable.

Do we think we should do SOMETHING beyond statements and actually utilize the options that ARE available – as limited as they are – to ATTEMPT to put an end to these shutdowns?  On that my co-authors and I firmly agree – yes.  We now await to hear the general internet consensus.

The view though in our minds is simple – we can say – not our problem and say the problem belongs to someone else – or we can use what few options we have to try and affect positive change.  Doing nothing however, is dangerous – and the consequences of letting states continue to shut down the Internet at will may far outweigh the harm of an attempt to do something.

As I said in a rather controversial post in another forum recently – for those of a religious persuasion – two thousand years ago – Pilate washed his hands – can we afford to wash ours and believe that it is someone else’s problem and pray they actually do something about it?  I personally do not believe so.

Just my thoughts :0

Andrew

From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: 18 April 2017 23:34
To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Cc: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Subject: Re: [kictanet] ANTI-SHUTDOWN-01 Policy

Andrew,



On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Andrew Alston via kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>> wrote:


We also realize that this policy pushes the boundaries of what an organisation like AfriNIC normally is involved in, and asks the question about if an RIR should be involved in what is essentially a political matter.  To answer this, we have to look at the AfriNIC mandate as stated in section 3.4 of the bylaws.  We believe that section 3.4.(v) when combined with section 3.4.(ix) of those bylaws does actually allow AfriNIC to implement a policy like this within its mandate.


The question that comes to the fore is not MAY we do this but SHOULD we do this?

--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20170418/d19db5b4/attachment.htm>