Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance
It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>: The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet. Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality. For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit.
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge. The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases. If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others. And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root. This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying. Cheers, Roberto On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>: The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet. Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality. For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Greetings Roberto, It is a pleasure to correspond with you once again. I would be grateful if you could point me to where Ukraine says it is no longer asking for this. Otherwise, I disagree completely :-) Contrary to what you say, I think it would be very easy for ICANN to block .RU as well as subsequently to resist pressure from the US or anyone else to remove the ccTLDs of Iran and Cuba or any others. The reason is that Iran and Cuba are not invading their neighbors and murdering civilians on a massive scale. Whatever issues the US government has with Iran and Cuba, no-one is comparing them to Putin’s Russia. No, not even North Korea is comparable. Is it really true that ICANN / IANA is saying “No-one will ever trust us again to be impartial if we stand up to a invading murdering fascist dictator, because we are not able to articulate the difference between distrusting but peaceful rivals and someone who invades with armored columns, artillery, and bombings. If we are perceived to have inconvenienced Putin’s murderous regime in any way, who could trust us any more to administer names and numbers fairly?” If that is indeed ICANN’s position, it is at once both reprehensible and risible. Any schoolchild could tell the difference between mass murder and angry words, and ICANN could tell easily tell the US that when Cuba or Iran launch massive unprovoked attacks that result in huge civilian casualties, that then they would consider cutting them off. Will ICANN still be fence-sitting when there are nuclear bombs? How about chemical weapons, is that still not worthy of taking action? What is the cut-off point exactly for not doing anything in the face of mass murder? A separate but related question: are the unintended consequences really that bad compared to an almost beat-by-beat replay of the occupation of the Sudetenland, or turning Kiev into a rubble-filled killing ground? I can’t really conceive how an inconvenience to well-paid internet regulators compares to this. So what if ICANN and IANA have to change their mission statement slightly to make it clear that “one world, one internet” does not include invading nuclear-armed megalomaniacs? Is that such a big ask? Is that slogan, so often honored in the breach, worth so many lives? It is true that root operators could route around ICANN. That would reflect very badly on them, but they could. But how does this excuse ICANN’s shameful silence and inaction? Truly, it is time to stand up and be counted among those who would defend the world, and the internet, from murderous autocrats. Antony
On Mar 12, 2022, at 12:59 AM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer
Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>: The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet.
Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality.
For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA>
Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Well, as for other issues, we have to agree to disagree You may have a point that some countries in the US black list are not doing what Putin is doing, but there were for sure other invasions and killings - think about the second Iraki war, triggered by an intelligence report that has been admitted, later on, to be fabricated I remain convinced that this measure will be useless and only produce unintended collateral damage - while I remain convinced that we should do more to apply sanctions that really hurt, including drastically limit the import of gas from Russia, even if it will hurt us Europeans. As a side note, I find frustrating to have to conduct this discussion via email and not in person - but that is a whole other story. Cheers, Roberto On 12.03.2022, at 11:04, Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc<mailto:avc@avc.vc>> wrote: Greetings Roberto, It is a pleasure to correspond with you once again. I would be grateful if you could point me to where Ukraine says it is no longer asking for this. Otherwise, I disagree completely :-) Contrary to what you say, I think it would be very easy for ICANN to block .RU as well as subsequently to resist pressure from the US or anyone else to remove the ccTLDs of Iran and Cuba or any others. The reason is that Iran and Cuba are not invading their neighbors and murdering civilians on a massive scale. Whatever issues the US government has with Iran and Cuba, no-one is comparing them to Putin’s Russia. No, not even North Korea is comparable. Is it really true that ICANN / IANA is saying “No-one will ever trust us again to be impartial if we stand up to a invading murdering fascist dictator, because we are not able to articulate the difference between distrusting but peaceful rivals and someone who invades with armored columns, artillery, and bombings. If we are perceived to have inconvenienced Putin’s murderous regime in any way, who could trust us any more to administer names and numbers fairly?” If that is indeed ICANN’s position, it is at once both reprehensible and risible. Any schoolchild could tell the difference between mass murder and angry words, and ICANN could tell easily tell the US that when Cuba or Iran launch massive unprovoked attacks that result in huge civilian casualties, that then they would consider cutting them off. Will ICANN still be fence-sitting when there are nuclear bombs? How about chemical weapons, is that still not worthy of taking action? What is the cut-off point exactly for not doing anything in the face of mass murder? A separate but related question: are the unintended consequences really that bad compared to an almost beat-by-beat replay of the occupation of the Sudetenland, or turning Kiev into a rubble-filled killing ground? I can’t really conceive how an inconvenience to well-paid internet regulators compares to this. So what if ICANN and IANA have to change their mission statement slightly to make it clear that “one world, one internet” does not include invading nuclear-armed megalomaniacs? Is that such a big ask? Is that slogan, so often honored in the breach, worth so many lives? It is true that root operators could route around ICANN. That would reflect very badly on them, but they could. But how does this excuse ICANN’s shameful silence and inaction? Truly, it is time to stand up and be counted among those who would defend the world, and the internet, from murderous autocrats. Antony On Mar 12, 2022, at 12:59 AM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge. The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases. If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others. And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root. This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying. Cheers, Roberto On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>: The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet. Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality. For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
That is something we can agree on. It would be wonderful to see you again.
On Mar 12, 2022, at 02:21, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
As a side note, I find frustrating to have to conduct this discussion via email and not in person - but that is a whole other story.
Agree- Hope to see you all at The Hague. (And what a great thing it would be if ICANN74 coincided with an ICC indicted Putin) On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 6:29 AM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
That is something we can agree on. It would be wonderful to see you again.
On Mar 12, 2022, at 02:21, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
As a side note, I find frustrating to have to conduct this discussion via email and not in person - but that is a whole other story.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi, I suggest that Antony and Evan and all the others that want to block Russia.... go and fight, Ukraine is calling for volunteers and you are both men. Please, I can see you want to do something, go and fight, you will serve us well. We will never agree to block any internet, in fact the opposite, on all sides. Those that are calling for this are in the wrong place. Furthermore, I am disappointed at all the US/EU companies who owe Russian people money, it's very suitable to just decide to call it quits and delete your debt. Like Tijani, I stand by and support the ISOC and ICANN calls to minimise any risk to the continued use of the internet by Internet end-users universally regardless of the politics of their countries. Sincerely Alan On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 12:13 PM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Greetings Roberto,
It is a pleasure to correspond with you once again. I would be grateful if you could point me to where Ukraine says it is no longer asking for this.
Otherwise, I disagree completely :-)
Contrary to what you say, I think it would be very easy for ICANN to block .RU as well as subsequently to resist pressure from the US or anyone else to remove the ccTLDs of Iran and Cuba or any others.
The reason is that Iran and Cuba are not invading their neighbors and murdering civilians on a massive scale. Whatever issues the US government has with Iran and Cuba, no-one is comparing them to Putin’s Russia. No, not even North Korea is comparable.
Is it really true that ICANN / IANA is saying “No-one will ever trust us again to be impartial if we stand up to a invading murdering fascist dictator, because we are not able to articulate the difference between distrusting but peaceful rivals and someone who invades with armored columns, artillery, and bombings. If we are perceived to have inconvenienced Putin’s murderous regime in any way, who could trust us any more to administer names and numbers fairly?”
If that is indeed ICANN’s position, it is at once both reprehensible and risible. Any schoolchild could tell the difference between mass murder and angry words, and ICANN could tell easily tell the US that when Cuba or Iran launch massive unprovoked attacks that result in huge civilian casualties, that then they would consider cutting them off. Will ICANN still be fence-sitting when there are nuclear bombs? How about chemical weapons, is that still not worthy of taking action? What is the cut-off point exactly for not doing anything in the face of mass murder?
A separate but related question: are the unintended consequences really that bad compared to an almost beat-by-beat replay of the occupation of the Sudetenland, or turning Kiev into a rubble-filled killing ground? I can’t really conceive how an inconvenience to well-paid internet regulators compares to this. So what if ICANN and IANA have to change their mission statement slightly to make it clear that “one world, one internet” does not include invading nuclear-armed megalomaniacs? Is that such a big ask? Is that slogan, so often honored in the breach, worth so many lives?
It is true that root operators could route around ICANN. That would reflect very badly on them, but they could. But how does this excuse ICANN’s shameful silence and inaction?
Truly, it is time to stand up and be counted among those who would defend the world, and the internet, from murderous autocrats.
Antony
On Mar 12, 2022, at 12:59 AM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer
Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>:
The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet.
Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality.
For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA
Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 9:47 AM Alan Levin via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
I suggest that Antony and Evan and all the others that want to block Russia.... go and fight,
I have not advocated to block Russia in this thread. Go back and check. This is why sane discussion here seems so impenetrable. You must be running out of straw. My original complaint here was that ICANN and ALAC have been utterly myopic as to assert that the only options to deal with the situation are binary -- "Unplug Russia" or "Thoughts and prayers". Alan, Maureen and others here have masterfully proven my point by addressing that choice and nothing else. Everyone is arguing against a position I did not take. There exist middle grounds, things that can be done without unplugging Russia, and it's to ALAC's disgrace that it never even considered them. - Evan
Dear all, Extremely interesting discussion. Two cents from my side: 1. Ukraine did not ask ICANN to judge who are "good guys, who are bad ones" and to punish bad ones. Actually, we did not ask for help, but we received it - thank you all so-so much! 2. All this discussion can't influence the Russian government's decision to isolate Runet from the Global Internet. I still doubt that they will even try - after their failure with Era cryptophone in Ukraine. But we, Ukrainians, do ask you: are you ready for this decision? During the GAC session at ICANN73 I heard the position of Russian representative in GAC - I can send you transcripts, if you are interested. I did not hear the position of Russian representatives at At-Large. Kind regards from bombed Kyiv, Oksana On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:43 PM Evan Leibovitch via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 9:47 AM Alan Levin via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
I suggest that Antony and Evan and all the others that want to block Russia.... go and fight,
I have not advocated to block Russia in this thread. Go back and check.
This is why sane discussion here seems so impenetrable. You must be running out of straw.
My original complaint here was that ICANN and ALAC have been utterly myopic as to assert that the only options to deal with the situation are binary -- "Unplug Russia" or "Thoughts and prayers". Alan, Maureen and others here have masterfully proven my point by addressing that choice and nothing else. Everyone is arguing against a position I did not take.
There exist middle grounds, things that can be done without unplugging Russia, and it's to ALAC's disgrace that it never even considered them.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:00 AM Oksana Prykhodko via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Extremely interesting discussion.
Really? I'm still waiting for a discussion. All I've heard here is "we're happy that ICANN wants to keep the Internet running in Russia because cutting it off hurts end users and not the warmongers", a sentiment with which I have come to agree. Unfortunately, in endlessly parroting with pride that common position, the notion of doing anything else has been either deflected or wilfully ignored. - Evan
Oksana- agree. I have not seen nor heard the Russian Federation address any of these substantive at the GAC. Keep pushing. Again, my heart goes to you and your Nation. The world has a lot to learn from you. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 14, 2022, at 11:00 AM, Oksana Prykhodko via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Extremely interesting discussion.
Two cents from my side:
1. Ukraine did not ask ICANN to judge who are "good guys, who are bad ones" and to punish bad ones. Actually, we did not ask for help, but we received it - thank you all so-so much!
2. All this discussion can't influence the Russian government's decision to isolate Runet from the Global Internet. I still doubt that they will even try - after their failure with Era cryptophone in Ukraine.
But we, Ukrainians, do ask you: are you ready for this decision?
During the GAC session at ICANN73 I heard the position of Russian representative in GAC - I can send you transcripts, if you are interested.
I did not hear the position of Russian representatives at At-Large.
Kind regards from bombed Kyiv, Oksana
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:43 PM Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 9:47 AM Alan Levin via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
I suggest that Antony and Evan and all the others that want to block Russia.... go and fight,
I have not advocated to block Russia in this thread. Go back and check.
This is why sane discussion here seems so impenetrable. You must be running out of straw.
My original complaint here was that ICANN and ALAC have been utterly myopic as to assert that the only options to deal with the situation are binary -- "Unplug Russia" or "Thoughts and prayers". Alan, Maureen and others here have masterfully proven my point by addressing that choice and nothing else. Everyone is arguing against a position I did not take.
There exist middle grounds, things that can be done without unplugging Russia, and it's to ALAC's disgrace that it never even considered them.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Evan, Agree. It's not that kind of discussion I would like to see, but, at least, the Ukrainian government's request was not ignored as my proposition to organize Ukrainian translation at least for GAC meetings. Javier, Thank you very much! Please learn first of all: never believe the Russian regime! the link for transcript of GAC Plenary session here: https://gac.icann.org/transcripts/public/icann73-gac-session-1-opening-plena... Ukrainian intervention is attached. UK, France (also on behalf of EU), US, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, Argentina condemn "Russia's assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state". RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thank you for giving me the floor. I would like to speak in Russian. The events that are occurring today are a terrible tragedy, clearly. At the same time, I would like to point out that ICANN is not a suitable forum for discussing these types of issues. I hope that during the ICANN73 conference, we will concentrate on the technical issues of the operation of the Internet and we will refrain from discussing political issues. I would also like clarify one issue. This was the proposal of Ukraine to exclude the RU domain zone from service. We, on the other part, are doing everything in our power to keep the Internet as a global indivisible space. Thank you. On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 5:19 PM Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Oksana- agree. I have not seen nor heard the Russian Federation address any of these substantive at the GAC. Keep pushing.
Again, my heart goes to you and your Nation. The world has a lot to learn from you.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 14, 2022, at 11:00 AM, Oksana Prykhodko via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Extremely interesting discussion.
Two cents from my side:
1. Ukraine did not ask ICANN to judge who are "good guys, who are bad ones" and to punish bad ones. Actually, we did not ask for help, but we received it - thank you all so-so much!
2. All this discussion can't influence the Russian government's decision to isolate Runet from the Global Internet. I still doubt that they will even try - after their failure with Era cryptophone in Ukraine.
But we, Ukrainians, do ask you: are you ready for this decision?
During the GAC session at ICANN73 I heard the position of Russian representative in GAC - I can send you transcripts, if you are interested.
I did not hear the position of Russian representatives at At-Large.
Kind regards from bombed Kyiv, Oksana
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:43 PM Evan Leibovitch via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 9:47 AM Alan Levin via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
I suggest that Antony and Evan and all the others that want to block Russia.... go and fight,
I have not advocated to block Russia in this thread. Go back and check.
This is why sane discussion here seems so impenetrable. You must be running out of straw.
My original complaint here was that ICANN and ALAC have been utterly myopic as to assert that the only options to deal with the situation are binary -- "Unplug Russia" or "Thoughts and prayers". Alan, Maureen and others here have masterfully proven my point by addressing that choice and nothing else. Everyone is arguing against a position I did not take.
There exist middle grounds, things that can be done without unplugging Russia, and it's to ALAC's disgrace that it never even considered them.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Mar 14, 2022, at 06:48, Alan Levin <alan@futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
I suggest that Antony and Evan and all the others that want to block Russia.... go and fight,
In the fight against apartheid, did you suggest that all those against the racist state should fight or shut up? It’s an unhelpful comment. I do not doubt the sincerity or good intentions of those with whom I disagree; I should have hoped that a discussion here would not devolve into personal attacks. I am not sure that blocking .RU is the answer, but I am certainly not satisfied with the reasons given not to do it, because they assume a world order that is in tatters and is unlikely to be reconstituted as before. Roberto suggests that we need to look at what the internet looks like after this is all over. That is exactly right and from that perspective I’d like to offer a few thoughts. - When we think about what we want the internet to look like when this is all over, we should realize that it’s not going to be over for a LONG time. It’s not as if we can convene a conference in the near future and calmly discuss the unfortunate incident in Ukraine as if it were a accident-prone road needing a few more lights and signs. This war is going to get much more horrific; there is a non-zero chance that Putin will use battlefield nuclear weapons; and the Ukrainian people will continue a costly, bloody guerrilla war until they force the Russians to withdraw. So our new world order is going to be forged in fire, not at a collegial colloquium at a pleasant vacation resort. Every day we will be asked to confront hard choices. The real world is about to burst into our cosy conference room and it’s going to get messy. - Therefore, it will soon be impossible to be “apolitical” or “neutral” in the way it has been heretofore understood. Putin has made it so. Supranational bodies will find it harder to ignore political malfeasance and state-sponsored murder. Harder to justify conferences at exclusive resorts in repressive countries; harder to have have friendly relations with representatives of these countries; harder to allow them to block reforms. - Internet institutions will need to recognize that the right to a free internet is one of several human rights, not a stand-alone right that be casually uncoupled from others. People will need to choose sides because it is no longer tenable to pretend that bad actions are not important so long as we all parrot the same idealistic rhetoric. Today, mentioning human rights to a representative of a repressive state at ICANN is the equivalent of farting loudly at the dinner table, but Putin has changed all that. - The greatest threat to an open, interoperable internet are repressive regimes — not the ITU, not new gTLDs, not the trademark lobby, not spam, not any of the familiar hobby horses. Putin and his ilk cannot be ignored if an open internet is the goal. Internet policy-making bodies can no longer ignore these realities if they hope to be taken seriously. I certainly don’t know the answers, but I believe that these are some of the things we will need to consider. “Business as usual” is now off the table for ICANN and IANA no matter how much they try to delay or deny these new realities. Thank you in advance for a serious discussion, because this is a serious topic. The helpful way to think about a crisis is to recognize that it’s one of the few opportunities we have a make real changes.
Very constructive, thoughtful comment, @Antony. Thx On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 5:12 PM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
On Mar 14, 2022, at 06:48, Alan Levin <alan@futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
I suggest that Antony and Evan and all the others that want to block
Russia.... go and fight,
In the fight against apartheid, did you suggest that all those against the racist state should fight or shut up? It’s an unhelpful comment.
I do not doubt the sincerity or good intentions of those with whom I disagree; I should have hoped that a discussion here would not devolve into personal attacks.
I am not sure that blocking .RU is the answer, but I am certainly not satisfied with the reasons given not to do it, because they assume a world order that is in tatters and is unlikely to be reconstituted as before.
Roberto suggests that we need to look at what the internet looks like after this is all over. That is exactly right and from that perspective I’d like to offer a few thoughts.
- When we think about what we want the internet to look like when this is all over, we should realize that it’s not going to be over for a LONG time. It’s not as if we can convene a conference in the near future and calmly discuss the unfortunate incident in Ukraine as if it were a accident-prone road needing a few more lights and signs. This war is going to get much more horrific; there is a non-zero chance that Putin will use battlefield nuclear weapons; and the Ukrainian people will continue a costly, bloody guerrilla war until they force the Russians to withdraw. So our new world order is going to be forged in fire, not at a collegial colloquium at a pleasant vacation resort. Every day we will be asked to confront hard choices. The real world is about to burst into our cosy conference room and it’s going to get messy.
- Therefore, it will soon be impossible to be “apolitical” or “neutral” in the way it has been heretofore understood. Putin has made it so. Supranational bodies will find it harder to ignore political malfeasance and state-sponsored murder. Harder to justify conferences at exclusive resorts in repressive countries; harder to have have friendly relations with representatives of these countries; harder to allow them to block reforms.
- Internet institutions will need to recognize that the right to a free internet is one of several human rights, not a stand-alone right that be casually uncoupled from others. People will need to choose sides because it is no longer tenable to pretend that bad actions are not important so long as we all parrot the same idealistic rhetoric. Today, mentioning human rights to a representative of a repressive state at ICANN is the equivalent of farting loudly at the dinner table, but Putin has changed all that.
- The greatest threat to an open, interoperable internet are repressive regimes — not the ITU, not new gTLDs, not the trademark lobby, not spam, not any of the familiar hobby horses. Putin and his ilk cannot be ignored if an open internet is the goal. Internet policy-making bodies can no longer ignore these realities if they hope to be taken seriously.
I certainly don’t know the answers, but I believe that these are some of the things we will need to consider. “Business as usual” is now off the table for ICANN and IANA no matter how much they try to delay or deny these new realities.
Thank you in advance for a serious discussion, because this is a serious topic. The helpful way to think about a crisis is to recognize that it’s one of the few opportunities we have a make real changes.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi all, My thanks to Antony for having moved the discussion to a different level. Let me start by saying that the current invasion of Ukraine is part of a larger war, that has started long time ago and will not finish when the weapons in Ukraine will be silent again. I do not believe that Putin invaded Ukraine to protect russian-speaking communities: language, like race or religion, has been too often just the excuse - or the way to try to gather consensus when the real motives would not have emotionally involved people - for war. The issue here is that Putin considers extremely dangerous for the survival of his regime to have a former Soviet Republic choosing a democratic form of government, and being able to achieve good results. This can in time give “bad” ideas to folks internally, and he has to avoid this at all cost. In support of my belief I can mention the russian-speaking Ukrainians who have taken position against the invasion, obliging Putin even to kidnap a russian-speaking mayor and replace him with a puppet. This confrontation between democracy and absolutism translates, in Internet terms, to the struggle between folks who see the Internet as open, interoperable, with governance mechanisms open to multiple stakeholders, and those who want the Internet to be controlled by a central authority, without checks and balances. We, on this list, have different opinions on how the current Internet has achieved its multi-stakeholder governance model, but I cannot believe that any of us see the centralised model as an alternative. Therefore, while dissenting on details, we are all on the same side of this war. I fully agree with Antony that life will not be back to “normal” when the war in Ukraine will be over. Of course, we could not sit down and discuss as if nothing had happened, as if no red line had been crossed. Whatever solution will be found, hopefully via negotiation and without further victims, I do not believe that, even if Ukraine signs an agreement with Russia, the “western world” can drop the sanctions against Putin. If Ukraine is only an episode of a bigger fight, closing the episode does not end the fight, in particular now that we have seen that the confrontation has escalated, and can be escalated by Putting again at any moment, to an unacceptable level, in violation of international law and making Putin a war criminal. I imagine that folks in Moldavia, the Baltic Republics, Poland, even Finland, are now wondering who could be the next if we do not give a clear sign that we cannot forget what has happened and that we are decided to prevent this from happening again. In my opinion there are at least two things that we must do. At the Internet level, make sure that we never violate the basic principles, as once they have been compromised once, the door will be open for other actions. At the wider level, we have to be ready to pay a price for our fight for democracy - this will not be the first time, and regretfully unlikely to be the last time. I believe that in Western Europe we must accept things like having colder temperatures in our homes in winter and less air conditioning in summer if that means to stop financing a regime that might even be using that money for weapons that can be used against us. Continuing with sanctions will make us less comfortable, but this is the necessary price to pay. Cheers, Roberto
On 14.03.2022, at 22:12, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
On Mar 14, 2022, at 06:48, Alan Levin <alan@futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
I suggest that Antony and Evan and all the others that want to block Russia.... go and fight,
In the fight against apartheid, did you suggest that all those against the racist state should fight or shut up? It’s an unhelpful comment.
I do not doubt the sincerity or good intentions of those with whom I disagree; I should have hoped that a discussion here would not devolve into personal attacks.
I am not sure that blocking .RU is the answer, but I am certainly not satisfied with the reasons given not to do it, because they assume a world order that is in tatters and is unlikely to be reconstituted as before.
Roberto suggests that we need to look at what the internet looks like after this is all over. That is exactly right and from that perspective I’d like to offer a few thoughts.
- When we think about what we want the internet to look like when this is all over, we should realize that it’s not going to be over for a LONG time. It’s not as if we can convene a conference in the near future and calmly discuss the unfortunate incident in Ukraine as if it were a accident-prone road needing a few more lights and signs. This war is going to get much more horrific; there is a non-zero chance that Putin will use battlefield nuclear weapons; and the Ukrainian people will continue a costly, bloody guerrilla war until they force the Russians to withdraw. So our new world order is going to be forged in fire, not at a collegial colloquium at a pleasant vacation resort. Every day we will be asked to confront hard choices. The real world is about to burst into our cosy conference room and it’s going to get messy.
- Therefore, it will soon be impossible to be “apolitical” or “neutral” in the way it has been heretofore understood. Putin has made it so. Supranational bodies will find it harder to ignore political malfeasance and state-sponsored murder. Harder to justify conferences at exclusive resorts in repressive countries; harder to have have friendly relations with representatives of these countries; harder to allow them to block reforms.
- Internet institutions will need to recognize that the right to a free internet is one of several human rights, not a stand-alone right that be casually uncoupled from others. People will need to choose sides because it is no longer tenable to pretend that bad actions are not important so long as we all parrot the same idealistic rhetoric. Today, mentioning human rights to a representative of a repressive state at ICANN is the equivalent of farting loudly at the dinner table, but Putin has changed all that.
- The greatest threat to an open, interoperable internet are repressive regimes — not the ITU, not new gTLDs, not the trademark lobby, not spam, not any of the familiar hobby horses. Putin and his ilk cannot be ignored if an open internet is the goal. Internet policy-making bodies can no longer ignore these realities if they hope to be taken seriously.
I certainly don’t know the answers, but I believe that these are some of the things we will need to consider. “Business as usual” is now off the table for ICANN and IANA no matter how much they try to delay or deny these new realities.
Thank you in advance for a serious discussion, because this is a serious topic. The helpful way to think about a crisis is to recognize that it’s one of the few opportunities we have a make real changes.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Roberto +1 John More
On Mar 15, 2022, at 6:08 AM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
My thanks to Antony for having moved the discussion to a different level.
Let me start by saying that the current invasion of Ukraine is part of a larger war, that has started long time ago and will not finish when the weapons in Ukraine will be silent again.
I do not believe that Putin invaded Ukraine to protect russian-speaking communities: language, like race or religion, has been too often just the excuse - or the way to try to gather consensus when the real motives would not have emotionally involved people - for war. The issue here is that Putin considers extremely dangerous for the survival of his regime to have a former Soviet Republic choosing a democratic form of government, and being able to achieve good results. This can in time give “bad” ideas to folks internally, and he has to avoid this at all cost. In support of my belief I can mention the russian-speaking Ukrainians who have taken position against the invasion, obliging Putin even to kidnap a russian-speaking mayor and replace him with a puppet.
This confrontation between democracy and absolutism translates, in Internet terms, to the struggle between folks who see the Internet as open, interoperable, with governance mechanisms open to multiple stakeholders, and those who want the Internet to be controlled by a central authority, without checks and balances. We, on this list, have different opinions on how the current Internet has achieved its multi-stakeholder governance model, but I cannot believe that any of us see the centralised model as an alternative. Therefore, while dissenting on details, we are all on the same side of this war.
I fully agree with Antony that life will not be back to “normal” when the war in Ukraine will be over. Of course, we could not sit down and discuss as if nothing had happened, as if no red line had been crossed. Whatever solution will be found, hopefully via negotiation and without further victims, I do not believe that, even if Ukraine signs an agreement with Russia, the “western world” can drop the sanctions against Putin. If Ukraine is only an episode of a bigger fight, closing the episode does not end the fight, in particular now that we have seen that the confrontation has escalated, and can be escalated by Putting again at any moment, to an unacceptable level, in violation of international law and making Putin a war criminal. I imagine that folks in Moldavia, the Baltic Republics, Poland, even Finland, are now wondering who could be the next if we do not give a clear sign that we cannot forget what has happened and that we are decided to prevent this from happening again.
In my opinion there are at least two things that we must do. At the Internet level, make sure that we never violate the basic principles, as once they have been compromised once, the door will be open for other actions. At the wider level, we have to be ready to pay a price for our fight for democracy - this will not be the first time, and regretfully unlikely to be the last time. I believe that in Western Europe we must accept things like having colder temperatures in our homes in winter and less air conditioning in summer if that means to stop financing a regime that might even be using that money for weapons that can be used against us. Continuing with sanctions will make us less comfortable, but this is the necessary price to pay.
Cheers, Roberto
On 14.03.2022, at 22:12, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
On Mar 14, 2022, at 06:48, Alan Levin <alan@futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
I suggest that Antony and Evan and all the others that want to block Russia.... go and fight,
In the fight against apartheid, did you suggest that all those against the racist state should fight or shut up? It’s an unhelpful comment.
I do not doubt the sincerity or good intentions of those with whom I disagree; I should have hoped that a discussion here would not devolve into personal attacks.
I am not sure that blocking .RU is the answer, but I am certainly not satisfied with the reasons given not to do it, because they assume a world order that is in tatters and is unlikely to be reconstituted as before.
Roberto suggests that we need to look at what the internet looks like after this is all over. That is exactly right and from that perspective I’d like to offer a few thoughts.
- When we think about what we want the internet to look like when this is all over, we should realize that it’s not going to be over for a LONG time. It’s not as if we can convene a conference in the near future and calmly discuss the unfortunate incident in Ukraine as if it were a accident-prone road needing a few more lights and signs. This war is going to get much more horrific; there is a non-zero chance that Putin will use battlefield nuclear weapons; and the Ukrainian people will continue a costly, bloody guerrilla war until they force the Russians to withdraw. So our new world order is going to be forged in fire, not at a collegial colloquium at a pleasant vacation resort. Every day we will be asked to confront hard choices. The real world is about to burst into our cosy conference room and it’s going to get messy.
- Therefore, it will soon be impossible to be “apolitical” or “neutral” in the way it has been heretofore understood. Putin has made it so. Supranational bodies will find it harder to ignore political malfeasance and state-sponsored murder. Harder to justify conferences at exclusive resorts in repressive countries; harder to have have friendly relations with representatives of these countries; harder to allow them to block reforms.
- Internet institutions will need to recognize that the right to a free internet is one of several human rights, not a stand-alone right that be casually uncoupled from others. People will need to choose sides because it is no longer tenable to pretend that bad actions are not important so long as we all parrot the same idealistic rhetoric. Today, mentioning human rights to a representative of a repressive state at ICANN is the equivalent of farting loudly at the dinner table, but Putin has changed all that.
- The greatest threat to an open, interoperable internet are repressive regimes — not the ITU, not new gTLDs, not the trademark lobby, not spam, not any of the familiar hobby horses. Putin and his ilk cannot be ignored if an open internet is the goal. Internet policy-making bodies can no longer ignore these realities if they hope to be taken seriously.
I certainly don’t know the answers, but I believe that these are some of the things we will need to consider. “Business as usual” is now off the table for ICANN and IANA no matter how much they try to delay or deny these new realities.
Thank you in advance for a serious discussion, because this is a serious topic. The helpful way to think about a crisis is to recognize that it’s one of the few opportunities we have a make real changes.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Lavrov confirmed Roberto's analyses of the situation: "The military operation is not so much about Ukraine as about the world order. The United States under Biden has conquered Europe, and the current crisis is an epochal moment in determining the world order" "The current situation is epochal, a 'battle' is being fought over what the world order will look like" https://www.b92.net/eng/news/world.php?yyyy=2022&mm=03&dd=16&nav_id=113292&f... Kind regards, Oksana On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:25 PM John More via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Roberto
+1
John More
On Mar 15, 2022, at 6:08 AM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
My thanks to Antony for having moved the discussion to a different level.
Let me start by saying that the current invasion of Ukraine is part of a larger war, that has started long time ago and will not finish when the weapons in Ukraine will be silent again.
I do not believe that Putin invaded Ukraine to protect russian-speaking communities: language, like race or religion, has been too often just the excuse - or the way to try to gather consensus when the real motives would not have emotionally involved people - for war. The issue here is that Putin considers extremely dangerous for the survival of his regime to have a former Soviet Republic choosing a democratic form of government, and being able to achieve good results. This can in time give “bad” ideas to folks internally, and he has to avoid this at all cost. In support of my belief I can mention the russian-speaking Ukrainians who have taken position against the invasion, obliging Putin even to kidnap a russian-speaking mayor and replace him with a puppet.
This confrontation between democracy and absolutism translates, in Internet terms, to the struggle between folks who see the Internet as open, interoperable, with governance mechanisms open to multiple stakeholders, and those who want the Internet to be controlled by a central authority, without checks and balances. We, on this list, have different opinions on how the current Internet has achieved its multi-stakeholder governance model, but I cannot believe that any of us see the centralised model as an alternative. Therefore, while dissenting on details, we are all on the same side of this war.
I fully agree with Antony that life will not be back to “normal” when the war in Ukraine will be over. Of course, we could not sit down and discuss as if nothing had happened, as if no red line had been crossed. Whatever solution will be found, hopefully via negotiation and without further victims, I do not believe that, even if Ukraine signs an agreement with Russia, the “western world” can drop the sanctions against Putin. If Ukraine is only an episode of a bigger fight, closing the episode does not end the fight, in particular now that we have seen that the confrontation has escalated, and can be escalated by Putting again at any moment, to an unacceptable level, in violation of international law and making Putin a war criminal. I imagine that folks in Moldavia, the Baltic Republics, Poland, even Finland, are now wondering who could be the next if we do not give a clear sign that we cannot forget what has happened and that we are decided to prevent this from happening again.
In my opinion there are at least two things that we must do. At the Internet level, make sure that we never violate the basic principles, as once they have been compromised once, the door will be open for other actions. At the wider level, we have to be ready to pay a price for our fight for democracy - this will not be the first time, and regretfully unlikely to be the last time. I believe that in Western Europe we must accept things like having colder temperatures in our homes in winter and less air conditioning in summer if that means to stop financing a regime that might even be using that money for weapons that can be used against us. Continuing with sanctions will make us less comfortable, but this is the necessary price to pay.
Cheers, Roberto
On 14.03.2022, at 22:12, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
On Mar 14, 2022, at 06:48, Alan Levin <alan@futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
I suggest that Antony and Evan and all the others that want to block
Russia.... go and fight,
In the fight against apartheid, did you suggest that all those against the racist state should fight or shut up? It’s an unhelpful comment.
I do not doubt the sincerity or good intentions of those with whom I disagree; I should have hoped that a discussion here would not devolve into personal attacks.
I am not sure that blocking .RU is the answer, but I am certainly not satisfied with the reasons given not to do it, because they assume a world order that is in tatters and is unlikely to be reconstituted as before.
Roberto suggests that we need to look at what the internet looks like after this is all over. That is exactly right and from that perspective I’d like to offer a few thoughts.
- When we think about what we want the internet to look like when this is all over, we should realize that it’s not going to be over for a LONG time. It’s not as if we can convene a conference in the near future and calmly discuss the unfortunate incident in Ukraine as if it were a accident-prone road needing a few more lights and signs. This war is going to get much more horrific; there is a non-zero chance that Putin will use battlefield nuclear weapons; and the Ukrainian people will continue a costly, bloody guerrilla war until they force the Russians to withdraw. So our new world order is going to be forged in fire, not at a collegial colloquium at a pleasant vacation resort. Every day we will be asked to confront hard choices. The real world is about to burst into our cosy conference room and it’s going to get messy.
- Therefore, it will soon be impossible to be “apolitical” or “neutral” in the way it has been heretofore understood. Putin has made it so. Supranational bodies will find it harder to ignore political malfeasance and state-sponsored murder. Harder to justify conferences at exclusive resorts in repressive countries; harder to have have friendly relations with representatives of these countries; harder to allow them to block reforms.
- Internet institutions will need to recognize that the right to a free internet is one of several human rights, not a stand-alone right that be casually uncoupled from others. People will need to choose sides because it is no longer tenable to pretend that bad actions are not important so long as we all parrot the same idealistic rhetoric. Today, mentioning human rights to a representative of a repressive state at ICANN is the equivalent of farting loudly at the dinner table, but Putin has changed all that.
- The greatest threat to an open, interoperable internet are repressive regimes — not the ITU, not new gTLDs, not the trademark lobby, not spam, not any of the familiar hobby horses. Putin and his ilk cannot be ignored if an open internet is the goal. Internet policy-making bodies can no longer ignore these realities if they hope to be taken seriously.
I certainly don’t know the answers, but I believe that these are some of the things we will need to consider. “Business as usual” is now off the table for ICANN and IANA no matter how much they try to delay or deny these new realities.
Thank you in advance for a serious discussion, because this is a serious topic. The helpful way to think about a crisis is to recognize that it’s one of the few opportunities we have a make real changes.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
+1 @Roberto Putin and many of his generals are war criminals that must be captured, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned by the ICC or a new special Criminal Tribunal, no question. Im also certain of the people of Ukraine’s inherent right of self-determination, independence, self-defense, as well as the legal duty of civilized nations to help defend Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. And though I know nothing of military strategy or tactics, I also believe like minded liberal democracies must do all they can militarily to help Ukraine defend itself, and defend Ukraine’s wish to be democratic. If ICANN and/or it’s communities have a duty to act here it’s not because of Public International Law. It would be because of the fact that ICANN IS NOT an IGO and actually an MSM based INDEPENDENT transnational NGO, and MSM is basically a liberal democratic concept that values the individual human over sovereign state interests. That said, I am still unsure if well intended action by ICANN and/or ICANN communities in regards banning or suspend .RU from the root zone is actually beneficial or deleterious to MSM ends, though IMHO non-action is evidently immoral (and ICANN has acted on it’s funding initiative and registry-aid initiative.) Even presuming ICANN where an IGO -which it is evidently not; should international postal service out of Russia be banned or suspended because of Putins war because of International Law? How would that curb Putin’s war of aggression? What if those postcards out of Russia had anthrax - would that be an International Postal Union/ITU issue? What if .RU was actually deployed for cyber warfare? The most significant of international communication obligations is ITU Convention Article 35, which provides that ali radio "stations, whatever their purpose, must be established and operated in such a manner as not to cause harmful interference to the radio services or communications of other Members or of recognized private operating agencies, which carry on radio service…” "Harmful interference" as per Annex 2 to the Convention is "interference which endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radio communication service…". On the other hand, Article 38 ofthe ITC provides a specific exemption for military transmissions: "Members retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations of their army, naval and air forces." And the ITC actually provides specific authority for its member nations to interfere with international telecommunications in certain circumstances: • Article 19 allows members -NOT THE ITU itself- to "stop the transmission of any private telegram which may appear dangerous to the security of the State or contrary to their laws, to public order or to decency, provided that they immediately notify the office of origin of the stoppage of any such telegram or part thereof, except when such notification may appear dangerous to the security of the State." • Article 19 also permits members -NOT THE ITU itself- to "cut offany other private telecommunications which may appear dangerous to the security ofthe State or contraty to its laws, to public order or to decency." • Article 20 reserves the right of Members-NOT THE ITU Itself- "to suspend the international telecommunication service for an indefinite time, either generally or only for certain relations and/or certain kinds of correspondence, outgoing, incoming or in transit, provided that it immediately notifies such action to each of the other Members through the medium of the Secretary- General." In any case, the lTC's provisions apply primarily in peacetime. The treaty does not state how-if at all-it will apply during an armed conflict. If ICANN’s MSM-bound community wanted to act further it could. And if it decided to do so, via valid consensus, it probably should. But I don’t see that consensus in our communities. I see division. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 12, 2022, at 4:59 AM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer
Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>: The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet.
Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality.
For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA
Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
This is all crazy talk. Any serious consideration of removing the Russian ccTLDs from the root, for example, would have to be coordinated with organizations like the US State Dept, the EU Foreign Affairs Council, and no doubt some others. They are directly and indirectly involved in designing and implementing sanctions and have access to information others can't possibly have (Anonymous perhaps excepted.) What if they thought implementing the request as stated was a terrible idea for some reason that might not pop out of the keyboards here? Like, wild guess, those internet connections are being used to surveil various actors and entities. Or provide support to opposition? Even if it should be done it should be coordinated through diplomatic channels. One might for example want to give Russia an opportunity to say "oh no not that! Ok you win we'll withdraw from Ukraine" prior to implementation. Or at least let them indicate what their reaction might be (do that and we will immediately nuke Paris.) And have it be timed based on wider strategies. Here's a thought experiment: Suppose you were king of the universe and could snap your fingers and remove the Russian ccTLDs, etc. Under what circumstances would you undo that? You should be quite specific. A ceasefire? Total withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine? Does that include Donbas, Kherson, and Crimea? I'd agree it's interesting to poll those who are knowledgeable about such a matter but it's not exactly like McDonald's closing their hamburger joints. And even McDonald's CEO probably passed that by various diplomatic etc sources before committing to it to make sure they weren't missing something, that it might do more harm than good. -- -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*
Folks Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken Holly https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer
Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>: The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet.
Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality.
For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA>
Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-Thanks for link @Holly. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer
Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>: The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet.
Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality.
For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA
Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group. I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies. If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far? Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed. As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one. That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions: - where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia? - where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine? Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access. My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well. As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual. So far, I have heard nothing but crickets.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 07:11, Javier Rua via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
-Thanks for link @Holly.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer
Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>: The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet.
Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality.
For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA
Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I am very much in agreement with your sentiments. The community of internet related bodies seems be clutching at their pearls, trying to protect abstract notions of "neutrality" that may or not even exist in reality, while real people are suffering real injuries and real deaths. It may well be that the tools available, such as an effort to slow (but not stop) .ru DNS lookups, may have limited impact. However, limited impacts cumulate; Gulliver was tied down in Lilliput by many tiny threads, any one of which he could have easily broken but in combination proved the stronger. The community of internet bodies seems, like Pygmalian, to have fallen so deeply in love with its creation that their sense of ethics and morality has been benumbed; they love the statue they have carved over the living people upon which it is modeled. --karl-- On 3/13/22 11:12 AM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote:
It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies.
If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far?
Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed.
As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one.
That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions:
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia?
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine?
Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access.
My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well.
As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual.
So far, I have heard nothing but crickets.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 07:11, Javier Rua via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
-Thanks for link @Holly.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer
Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>:
The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet.
Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality.
For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA
Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On 13/03/2022 23:40, Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote: I would like to share a fascinating analysis I saw presented by someone named Alex on a different list. He posted his analysis in response to: https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet... "We believe it is now incumbent upon the Internet community to deliberate and make decisions in the face of humanitarian crises. We may not responsibly dismiss such crises without consideration, nor with consideration only for the self-interest of our community?s own direct constituents; instead, maturity of governance requires that self interests be weighed in the balance with broader moral and societal considerations. This document is the beginning of a global Internet governance conversation about the appropriate scope of sanctions, the feasibility of sanctions within the realm of our collective responsibility, and our moral imperative to minimize detrimental consequences." And here is what Alex stated "In less abstract terms, the framing of community measures as Internet governance basically does exactly what the Russians and Chinese have been worried about for years - and increases their play, especially towards the undecided, that the Internet overall needs to be taken away from those who inherited by "accidents of history" and given to the "adults" (government - specifically ITU) to manage. The timing is even more counterproductive for the community as it just looked like the Russian candidate for the head of the ITU (who wants to take over the IANA function) was going to lose to the US candidate. Now that might be more difficult, and the rocky road to to WSIS+20 even more perilous." I checked and the candidates up for election in August are indeed an American vs Russian: https://www.itu.int/pp22/en/elections/candidates/ Now imagine Putin plays chess and decides to play the long game with his intention of taking control of the Internet via his rep as Secretary-General in the ITU. He invades Ukraine knowing that the US and Western Europe response will be sanctions and cutting off different aspects of the Russian Internet. He can now go to numerous countries that might have voted for Doreen and convince them to place their vote for Rashid Ismailov. Regards, Hank Nussbacher
I am very much in agreement with your sentiments.
The community of internet related bodies seems be clutching at their pearls, trying to protect abstract notions of "neutrality" that may or not even exist in reality, while real people are suffering real injuries and real deaths.
It may well be that the tools available, such as an effort to slow (but not stop) .ru DNS lookups, may have limited impact.
However, limited impacts cumulate; Gulliver was tied down in Lilliput by many tiny threads, any one of which he could have easily broken but in combination proved the stronger.
The community of internet bodies seems, like Pygmalian, to have fallen so deeply in love with its creation that their sense of ethics and morality has been benumbed; they love the statue they have carved over the living people upon which it is modeled.
--karl--
On 3/13/22 11:12 AM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote:
It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies.
If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far?
Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed.
As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one.
That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions:
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia?
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine?
Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access.
My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well.
As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual.
So far, I have heard nothing but crickets.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
Hi all Yesterday I was in a teleconference (we were aware of the document referenced below) and I expressed the opinion that our actions during the war have to be guided by how we imagine the world after the war. No matter how painful the decisions during the war might be, we must be able not to jeopardise the long term vision and the related strategy. I also happen to know people in international organisations - or, better said, in organisations that operate based on international collaboration, not necessarily only according to international treaties. Many have similar problems. ESA, for instance, while delaying the start of new projects to a more favourable moment, has to deal with the already ongoing projects, that see collaboration of the “western” countries with Russia. What should they do? Kick off all the Russians, close all collaboration with Russia, including the currently operating Space Lab? And CERN, while excluding Russians from positions of power (which is a political decision not severely impacting current operations), should they kick out the 100+ scientist or make their life difficult demanding to break their ties with their mother country (incidentally, most of them have signed a document against the war - but this is, as some have argued on this list, “just words”)? These organisations, as many others, deal with the current situation not losing sight of the strategic objectives. Why should ICANN act differently and, instead, cede to the temptation of taking actions that, while possibly satisfying the impression of doing something in favour of Ukraine, do irreversible damage to the possibility of maintaining open channels of communication and keeping trust in an organization that stands by its basic principles also in dark moments? I am aware that on this list we have a lot of good people that happen to have widely different ideas about how to deal with the situation - all positions that I respect, but this does not prevent me from considering some of them counterproductive. Cheers, Roberto On 14.03.2022, at 06:47, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: On 13/03/2022 23:40, Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote: I would like to share a fascinating analysis I saw presented by someone named Alex on a different list. He posted his analysis in response to: https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet... "We believe it is now incumbent upon the Internet community to deliberate and make decisions in the face of humanitarian crises. We may not responsibly dismiss such crises without consideration, nor with consideration only for the self-interest of our community?s own direct constituents; instead, maturity of governance requires that self interests be weighed in the balance with broader moral and societal considerations. This document is the beginning of a global Internet governance conversation about the appropriate scope of sanctions, the feasibility of sanctions within the realm of our collective responsibility, and our moral imperative to minimize detrimental consequences." And here is what Alex stated "In less abstract terms, the framing of community measures as Internet governance basically does exactly what the Russians and Chinese have been worried about for years - and increases their play, especially towards the undecided, that the Internet overall needs to be taken away from those who inherited by "accidents of history" and given to the "adults" (government - specifically ITU) to manage. The timing is even more counterproductive for the community as it just looked like the Russian candidate for the head of the ITU (who wants to take over the IANA function) was going to lose to the US candidate. Now that might be more difficult, and the rocky road to to WSIS+20 even more perilous." I checked and the candidates up for election in August are indeed an American vs Russian: https://www.itu.int/pp22/en/elections/candidates/ Now imagine Putin plays chess and decides to play the long game with his intention of taking control of the Internet via his rep as Secretary-General in the ITU. He invades Ukraine knowing that the US and Western Europe response will be sanctions and cutting off different aspects of the Russian Internet. He can now go to numerous countries that might have voted for Doreen and convince them to place their vote for Rashid Ismailov. Regards, Hank Nussbacher I am very much in agreement with your sentiments. The community of internet related bodies seems be clutching at their pearls, trying to protect abstract notions of "neutrality" that may or not even exist in reality, while real people are suffering real injuries and real deaths. It may well be that the tools available, such as an effort to slow (but not stop) .ru DNS lookups, may have limited impact. However, limited impacts cumulate; Gulliver was tied down in Lilliput by many tiny threads, any one of which he could have easily broken but in combination proved the stronger. The community of internet bodies seems, like Pygmalian, to have fallen so deeply in love with its creation that their sense of ethics and morality has been benumbed; they love the statue they have carved over the living people upon which it is modeled. --karl-- On 3/13/22 11:12 AM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote: It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group. I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies. If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far? Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed. As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one. That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions: - where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia? - where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine? Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access. My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well. As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual. So far, I have heard nothing but crickets. On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: Folks Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken Holly https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls... On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge. The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases. If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others. And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root. This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying. Cheers, Roberto _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
For German speakers ... https://fm4.orf.at/stories/3022642/ research from Erich Moechel (an internet expert from the very beginning!). Erich English very short summary: After the media sector and the stock exchange, the western sanctions are now hitting the Russian IT industry with full force. With Cogent and Lumen, two of the top five international Internet carriers are in the process of severing their major customers in Russia one after the other. Market leader Rostelecom, all mobile phone companies and the Internet group Yandex are losing their strongest connections to the world. On Friday, the London Internet Exchange announced that Rostelecom traffic would no longer be routed. All of this is a first in the history of the Internet, but the statements by the two carriers raise more questions than they answer. ________________________________________ Von: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] im Auftrag von Roberto Gaetano via At-Large [at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 14. März 2022 09:27 An: At Large Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance Hi all Yesterday I was in a teleconference (we were aware of the document referenced below) and I expressed the opinion that our actions during the war have to be guided by how we imagine the world after the war. No matter how painful the decisions during the war might be, we must be able not to jeopardise the long term vision and the related strategy. I also happen to know people in international organisations - or, better said, in organisations that operate based on international collaboration, not necessarily only according to international treaties. Many have similar problems. ESA, for instance, while delaying the start of new projects to a more favourable moment, has to deal with the already ongoing projects, that see collaboration of the “western” countries with Russia. What should they do? Kick off all the Russians, close all collaboration with Russia, including the currently operating Space Lab? And CERN, while excluding Russians from positions of power (which is a political decision not severely impacting current operations), should they kick out the 100+ scientist or make their life difficult demanding to break their ties with their mother country (incidentally, most of them have signed a document against the war - but this is, as some have argued on this list, “just words”)? These organisations, as many others, deal with the current situation not losing sight of the strategic objectives. Why should ICANN act differently and, instead, cede to the temptation of taking actions that, while possibly satisfying the impression of doing something in favour of Ukraine, do irreversible damage to the possibility of maintaining open channels of communication and keeping trust in an organization that stands by its basic principles also in dark moments? I am aware that on this list we have a lot of good people that happen to have widely different ideas about how to deal with the situation - all positions that I respect, but this does not prevent me from considering some of them counterproductive. Cheers, Roberto On 14.03.2022, at 06:47, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: On 13/03/2022 23:40, Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote: I would like to share a fascinating analysis I saw presented by someone named Alex on a different list. He posted his analysis in response to: https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet... "We believe it is now incumbent upon the Internet community to deliberate and make decisions in the face of humanitarian crises. We may not responsibly dismiss such crises without consideration, nor with consideration only for the self-interest of our community?s own direct constituents; instead, maturity of governance requires that self interests be weighed in the balance with broader moral and societal considerations. This document is the beginning of a global Internet governance conversation about the appropriate scope of sanctions, the feasibility of sanctions within the realm of our collective responsibility, and our moral imperative to minimize detrimental consequences." And here is what Alex stated "In less abstract terms, the framing of community measures as Internet governance basically does exactly what the Russians and Chinese have been worried about for years - and increases their play, especially towards the undecided, that the Internet overall needs to be taken away from those who inherited by "accidents of history" and given to the "adults" (government - specifically ITU) to manage. The timing is even more counterproductive for the community as it just looked like the Russian candidate for the head of the ITU (who wants to take over the IANA function) was going to lose to the US candidate. Now that might be more difficult, and the rocky road to to WSIS+20 even more perilous." I checked and the candidates up for election in August are indeed an American vs Russian: https://www.itu.int/pp22/en/elections/candidates/ Now imagine Putin plays chess and decides to play the long game with his intention of taking control of the Internet via his rep as Secretary-General in the ITU. He invades Ukraine knowing that the US and Western Europe response will be sanctions and cutting off different aspects of the Russian Internet. He can now go to numerous countries that might have voted for Doreen and convince them to place their vote for Rashid Ismailov. Regards, Hank Nussbacher I am very much in agreement with your sentiments. The community of internet related bodies seems be clutching at their pearls, trying to protect abstract notions of "neutrality" that may or not even exist in reality, while real people are suffering real injuries and real deaths. It may well be that the tools available, such as an effort to slow (but not stop) .ru DNS lookups, may have limited impact. However, limited impacts cumulate; Gulliver was tied down in Lilliput by many tiny threads, any one of which he could have easily broken but in combination proved the stronger. The community of internet bodies seems, like Pygmalian, to have fallen so deeply in love with its creation that their sense of ethics and morality has been benumbed; they love the statue they have carved over the living people upon which it is modeled. --karl-- On 3/13/22 11:12 AM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote: It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group. I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies. If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far? Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed. As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one. That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions: - where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia? - where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine? Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access. My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well. As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual. So far, I have heard nothing but crickets. On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: Folks Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken Holly https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls... On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge. The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases. If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others. And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root. This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying. Cheers, Roberto _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Let me cool down a little bit the Russia disconnect. In fact, about 30% of the population uses the internet (youtube, facebook, telegram) to receive real information about the war. It's all about this layer of people not influenced by state propaganda. All local free media, such as Dozhd, Echo of Moscow, Meduza and others are already blocked. Facebook, Instagram were blocked a few days ago. Disconnection of Russia from international tier 1 hits those open minded people, not the ones who are using local digital platforms and won't know the truth about the war. This formula is very simple. The Internet is the only media which delivers real information across the borders. Disconnection worthen the situation, not improving it. Western blocking Russian state media is not doing any good as well, because the sound of Russian propaganda won't change the opinion worldwide. But this makes Russian government officials even more furious, blocking more and more international platforms inside Russia. --andrei On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:20 PM SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
For German speakers ... https://fm4.orf.at/stories/3022642/ research from Erich Moechel (an internet expert from the very beginning!). Erich
English very short summary: After the media sector and the stock exchange, the western sanctions are now hitting the Russian IT industry with full force. With Cogent and Lumen, two of the top five international Internet carriers are in the process of severing their major customers in Russia one after the other. Market leader Rostelecom, all mobile phone companies and the Internet group Yandex are losing their strongest connections to the world. On Friday, the London Internet Exchange announced that Rostelecom traffic would no longer be routed. All of this is a first in the history of the Internet, but the statements by the two carriers raise more questions than they answer.
________________________________________ Von: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] im Auftrag von Roberto Gaetano via At-Large [at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 14. März 2022 09:27 An: At Large Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance
Hi all
Yesterday I was in a teleconference (we were aware of the document referenced below) and I expressed the opinion that our actions during the war have to be guided by how we imagine the world after the war. No matter how painful the decisions during the war might be, we must be able not to jeopardise the long term vision and the related strategy.
I also happen to know people in international organisations - or, better said, in organisations that operate based on international collaboration, not necessarily only according to international treaties. Many have similar problems. ESA, for instance, while delaying the start of new projects to a more favourable moment, has to deal with the already ongoing projects, that see collaboration of the “western” countries with Russia. What should they do? Kick off all the Russians, close all collaboration with Russia, including the currently operating Space Lab? And CERN, while excluding Russians from positions of power (which is a political decision not severely impacting current operations), should they kick out the 100+ scientist or make their life difficult demanding to break their ties with their mother country (incidentally, most of them have signed a document against the war - but this is, as some have argued on this list, “just words”)? These organisations, as many others, deal with the current situation not losing sight of the strategic objectives. Why should ICANN act differently and, instead, cede to the temptation of taking actions that, while possibly satisfying the impression of doing something in favour of Ukraine, do irreversible damage to the possibility of maintaining open channels of communication and keeping trust in an organization that stands by its basic principles also in dark moments?
I am aware that on this list we have a lot of good people that happen to have widely different ideas about how to deal with the situation - all positions that I respect, but this does not prevent me from considering some of them counterproductive.
Cheers, Roberto
On 14.03.2022, at 06:47, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
On 13/03/2022 23:40, Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote:
I would like to share a fascinating analysis I saw presented by someone named Alex on a different list. He posted his analysis in response to:
https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet...
"We believe it is now incumbent upon the Internet community to deliberate and make decisions in the face of humanitarian crises. We may not responsibly dismiss such crises without consideration, nor with consideration only for the self-interest of our community?s own direct constituents; instead, maturity of governance requires that self interests be weighed in the balance with broader moral and societal considerations. This document is the beginning of a global Internet governance conversation about the appropriate scope of sanctions, the feasibility of sanctions within the realm of our collective responsibility, and our moral imperative to minimize detrimental consequences."
And here is what Alex stated "In less abstract terms, the framing of community measures as Internet governance basically does exactly what the Russians and Chinese have been worried about for years - and increases their play, especially towards the undecided, that the Internet overall needs to be taken away from those who inherited by "accidents of history" and given to the "adults" (government - specifically ITU) to manage. The timing is even more counterproductive for the community as it just looked like the Russian candidate for the head of the ITU (who wants to take over the IANA function) was going to lose to the US candidate. Now that might be more difficult, and the rocky road to to WSIS+20 even more perilous."
I checked and the candidates up for election in August are indeed an American vs Russian: https://www.itu.int/pp22/en/elections/candidates/
Now imagine Putin plays chess and decides to play the long game with his intention of taking control of the Internet via his rep as Secretary-General in the ITU. He invades Ukraine knowing that the US and Western Europe response will be sanctions and cutting off different aspects of the Russian Internet. He can now go to numerous countries that might have voted for Doreen and convince them to place their vote for Rashid Ismailov.
Regards, Hank Nussbacher
I am very much in agreement with your sentiments.
The community of internet related bodies seems be clutching at their pearls, trying to protect abstract notions of "neutrality" that may or not even exist in reality, while real people are suffering real injuries and real deaths.
It may well be that the tools available, such as an effort to slow (but not stop) .ru DNS lookups, may have limited impact.
However, limited impacts cumulate; Gulliver was tied down in Lilliput by many tiny threads, any one of which he could have easily broken but in combination proved the stronger.
The community of internet bodies seems, like Pygmalian, to have fallen so deeply in love with its creation that their sense of ethics and morality has been benumbed; they love the statue they have carved over the living people upon which it is modeled.
--karl--
On 3/13/22 11:12 AM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote: It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies.
If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far?
Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed.
As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one.
That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions:
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia?
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine?
Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access.
My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well.
As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual.
So far, I have heard nothing but crickets.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Andrei Kolesnikov ~ calendar bot
Thanks for your perspective, Andrei. That has been my hunch since day one, but I didn’t know if it was actually fact. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 14, 2022, at 6:01 AM, Andrey Kolesnikov via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Let me cool down a little bit the Russia disconnect. In fact, about 30% of the population uses the internet (youtube, facebook, telegram) to receive real information about the war. It's all about this layer of people not influenced by state propaganda. All local free media, such as Dozhd, Echo of Moscow, Meduza and others are already blocked. Facebook, Instagram were blocked a few days ago. Disconnection of Russia from international tier 1 hits those open minded people, not the ones who are using local digital platforms and won't know the truth about the war. This formula is very simple. The Internet is the only media which delivers real information across the borders. Disconnection worthen the situation, not improving it. Western blocking Russian state media is not doing any good as well, because the sound of Russian propaganda won't change the opinion worldwide. But this makes Russian government officials even more furious, blocking more and more international platforms inside Russia.
--andrei
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:20 PM SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: For German speakers ... https://fm4.orf.at/stories/3022642/ research from Erich Moechel (an internet expert from the very beginning!). Erich
English very short summary: After the media sector and the stock exchange, the western sanctions are now hitting the Russian IT industry with full force. With Cogent and Lumen, two of the top five international Internet carriers are in the process of severing their major customers in Russia one after the other. Market leader Rostelecom, all mobile phone companies and the Internet group Yandex are losing their strongest connections to the world. On Friday, the London Internet Exchange announced that Rostelecom traffic would no longer be routed. All of this is a first in the history of the Internet, but the statements by the two carriers raise more questions than they answer.
________________________________________ Von: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] im Auftrag von Roberto Gaetano via At-Large [at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 14. März 2022 09:27 An: At Large Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance
Hi all
Yesterday I was in a teleconference (we were aware of the document referenced below) and I expressed the opinion that our actions during the war have to be guided by how we imagine the world after the war. No matter how painful the decisions during the war might be, we must be able not to jeopardise the long term vision and the related strategy.
I also happen to know people in international organisations - or, better said, in organisations that operate based on international collaboration, not necessarily only according to international treaties. Many have similar problems. ESA, for instance, while delaying the start of new projects to a more favourable moment, has to deal with the already ongoing projects, that see collaboration of the “western” countries with Russia. What should they do? Kick off all the Russians, close all collaboration with Russia, including the currently operating Space Lab? And CERN, while excluding Russians from positions of power (which is a political decision not severely impacting current operations), should they kick out the 100+ scientist or make their life difficult demanding to break their ties with their mother country (incidentally, most of them have signed a document against the war - but this is, as some have argued on this list, “just words”)? These organisations, as many others, deal with the current situation not losing sight of the strategic objectives. Why should ICANN act differently and, instead, cede to the temptation of taking actions that, while possibly satisfying the impression of doing something in favour of Ukraine, do irreversible damage to the possibility of maintaining open channels of communication and keeping trust in an organization that stands by its basic principles also in dark moments?
I am aware that on this list we have a lot of good people that happen to have widely different ideas about how to deal with the situation - all positions that I respect, but this does not prevent me from considering some of them counterproductive.
Cheers, Roberto
On 14.03.2022, at 06:47, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
On 13/03/2022 23:40, Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote:
I would like to share a fascinating analysis I saw presented by someone named Alex on a different list. He posted his analysis in response to:
https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet...
"We believe it is now incumbent upon the Internet community to deliberate and make decisions in the face of humanitarian crises. We may not responsibly dismiss such crises without consideration, nor with consideration only for the self-interest of our community?s own direct constituents; instead, maturity of governance requires that self interests be weighed in the balance with broader moral and societal considerations. This document is the beginning of a global Internet governance conversation about the appropriate scope of sanctions, the feasibility of sanctions within the realm of our collective responsibility, and our moral imperative to minimize detrimental consequences."
And here is what Alex stated "In less abstract terms, the framing of community measures as Internet governance basically does exactly what the Russians and Chinese have been worried about for years - and increases their play, especially towards the undecided, that the Internet overall needs to be taken away from those who inherited by "accidents of history" and given to the "adults" (government - specifically ITU) to manage. The timing is even more counterproductive for the community as it just looked like the Russian candidate for the head of the ITU (who wants to take over the IANA function) was going to lose to the US candidate. Now that might be more difficult, and the rocky road to to WSIS+20 even more perilous."
I checked and the candidates up for election in August are indeed an American vs Russian: https://www.itu.int/pp22/en/elections/candidates/
Now imagine Putin plays chess and decides to play the long game with his intention of taking control of the Internet via his rep as Secretary-General in the ITU. He invades Ukraine knowing that the US and Western Europe response will be sanctions and cutting off different aspects of the Russian Internet. He can now go to numerous countries that might have voted for Doreen and convince them to place their vote for Rashid Ismailov.
Regards, Hank Nussbacher
I am very much in agreement with your sentiments.
The community of internet related bodies seems be clutching at their pearls, trying to protect abstract notions of "neutrality" that may or not even exist in reality, while real people are suffering real injuries and real deaths.
It may well be that the tools available, such as an effort to slow (but not stop) .ru DNS lookups, may have limited impact.
However, limited impacts cumulate; Gulliver was tied down in Lilliput by many tiny threads, any one of which he could have easily broken but in combination proved the stronger.
The community of internet bodies seems, like Pygmalian, to have fallen so deeply in love with its creation that their sense of ethics and morality has been benumbed; they love the statue they have carved over the living people upon which it is modeled.
--karl--
On 3/13/22 11:12 AM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote: It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies.
If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far?
Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed.
As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one.
That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions:
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia?
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine?
Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access.
My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well.
As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual.
So far, I have heard nothing but crickets.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Andrei Kolesnikov ~ calendar bot _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Andrey, thank you for some insights about the Russian situation from your point of view. It is very helpful and good to get more information about it because it is widening the picture of the whole situation and brings a more holistic perspective! Have a nice day! Best, M. Am 2022-03-14 10:45, schrieb Andrey Kolesnikov via At-Large:
Let me cool down a little bit the Russia disconnect. In fact, about 30% of the population uses the internet (youtube, facebook, telegram) to receive real information about the war. It's all about this layer of people not influenced by state propaganda. All local free media, such as Dozhd, Echo of Moscow, Meduza and others are already blocked. Facebook, Instagram were blocked a few days ago.
Disconnection of Russia from international tier 1 hits those open minded people, not the ones who are using local digital platforms and won't know the truth about the war. This formula is very simple. The Internet is the only media which delivers real information across the borders. Disconnection worthen the situation, not improving it. Western blocking Russian state media is not doing any good as well, because the sound of Russian propaganda won't change the opinion worldwide. But this makes Russian government officials even more furious, blocking more and more international platforms inside Russia.
--andrei
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:20 PM SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
For German speakers ... https://fm4.orf.at/stories/3022642/ research from Erich Moechel (an internet expert from the very beginning!). Erich
English very short summary: After the media sector and the stock exchange, the western sanctions are now hitting the Russian IT industry with full force. With Cogent and Lumen, two of the top five international Internet carriers are in the process of severing their major customers in Russia one after the other. Market leader Rostelecom, all mobile phone companies and the Internet group Yandex are losing their strongest connections to the world. On Friday, the London Internet Exchange announced that Rostelecom traffic would no longer be routed. All of this is a first in the history of the Internet, but the statements by the two carriers raise more questions than they answer.
________________________________________ Von: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] im Auftrag von Roberto Gaetano via At-Large [at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 14. März 2022 09:27 An: At Large Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance
Hi all
Yesterday I was in a teleconference (we were aware of the document referenced below) and I expressed the opinion that our actions during the war have to be guided by how we imagine the world after the war. No matter how painful the decisions during the war might be, we must be able not to jeopardise the long term vision and the related strategy.
I also happen to know people in international organisations - or, better said, in organisations that operate based on international collaboration, not necessarily only according to international treaties. Many have similar problems. ESA, for instance, while delaying the start of new projects to a more favourable moment, has to deal with the already ongoing projects, that see collaboration of the “western” countries with Russia. What should they do? Kick off all the Russians, close all collaboration with Russia, including the currently operating Space Lab? And CERN, while excluding Russians from positions of power (which is a political decision not severely impacting current operations), should they kick out the 100+ scientist or make their life difficult demanding to break their ties with their mother country (incidentally, most of them have signed a document against the war - but this is, as some have argued on this list, “just words”)? These organisations, as many others, deal with the current situation not losing sight of the strategic objectives. Why should ICANN act differently and, instead, cede to the temptation of taking actions that, while possibly satisfying the impression of doing something in favour of Ukraine, do irreversible damage to the possibility of maintaining open channels of communication and keeping trust in an organization that stands by its basic principles also in dark moments?
I am aware that on this list we have a lot of good people that happen to have widely different ideas about how to deal with the situation - all positions that I respect, but this does not prevent me from considering some of them counterproductive.
Cheers, Roberto
On 14.03.2022, at 06:47, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large
<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
wrote:
On 13/03/2022 23:40, Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote:
I would like to share a fascinating analysis I saw presented by someone named Alex on a different list. He posted his analysis in response to:
https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet...
"We believe it is now incumbent upon the Internet community to deliberate and make decisions in the face of humanitarian crises. We may not responsibly dismiss such crises without consideration, nor with consideration only for the self-interest of our community?s own direct constituents; instead, maturity of governance requires that self interests be weighed in the balance with broader moral and societal considerations. This document is the beginning of a global Internet governance conversation about the appropriate scope of sanctions, the feasibility of sanctions within the realm of our collective responsibility, and our moral imperative to minimize detrimental consequences."
And here is what Alex stated "In less abstract terms, the framing of community measures as Internet governance basically does exactly what the Russians and Chinese have been worried about for years - and increases their play, especially towards the undecided, that the Internet overall needs to be taken away from those who inherited by "accidents of history" and given to the "adults" (government - specifically ITU) to manage. The timing is even more counterproductive for the community as it just looked like the Russian candidate for the head of the ITU (who wants to take over the IANA function) was going to lose to the US candidate. Now that might be more difficult, and the rocky road to to WSIS+20 even more perilous."
I checked and the candidates up for election in August are indeed an American vs Russian: https://www.itu.int/pp22/en/elections/candidates/
Now imagine Putin plays chess and decides to play the long game with his intention of taking control of the Internet via his rep as Secretary-General in the ITU. He invades Ukraine knowing that the US and Western Europe response will be sanctions and cutting off different aspects of the Russian Internet. He can now go to numerous countries that might have voted for Doreen and convince them to place their vote for Rashid Ismailov.
Regards, Hank Nussbacher
I am very much in agreement with your sentiments.
The community of internet related bodies seems be clutching at their pearls, trying to protect abstract notions of "neutrality" that may or not even exist in reality, while real people are suffering real injuries and real deaths.
It may well be that the tools available, such as an effort to slow (but not stop) .ru DNS lookups, may have limited impact.
However, limited impacts cumulate; Gulliver was tied down in Lilliput by many tiny threads, any one of which he could have easily broken but in combination proved the stronger.
The community of internet bodies seems, like Pygmalian, to have fallen so deeply in love with its creation that their sense of ethics and morality has been benumbed; they love the statue they have carved over the living people upon which it is modeled.
--karl--
On 3/13/22 11:12 AM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote: It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies.
If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far?
Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed.
As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one.
That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions:
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia?
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine?
Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access.
My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well.
As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual.
So far, I have heard nothing but crickets.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large
<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large
<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
Andrei Kolesnikov ~ calendar bot _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Andrey, thank you for some insights about the Russian situation from your point of view. It is very helpful and good to get more information about it because it is widening the picture of the whole situation and brings a more holistic perspective! Have a nice day! Best, M. Am 2022-03-14 10:45, schrieb Andrey Kolesnikov via At-Large:
Let me cool down a little bit the Russia disconnect. In fact, about 30% of the population uses the internet (youtube, facebook, telegram) to receive real information about the war. It's all about this layer of people not influenced by state propaganda. All local free media, such as Dozhd, Echo of Moscow, Meduza and others are already blocked. Facebook, Instagram were blocked a few days ago.
Disconnection of Russia from international tier 1 hits those open minded people, not the ones who are using local digital platforms and won't know the truth about the war. This formula is very simple. The Internet is the only media which delivers real information across the borders. Disconnection worthen the situation, not improving it. Western blocking Russian state media is not doing any good as well, because the sound of Russian propaganda won't change the opinion worldwide. But this makes Russian government officials even more furious, blocking more and more international platforms inside Russia.
--andrei
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:20 PM SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
For German speakers ... https://fm4.orf.at/stories/3022642/ research from Erich Moechel (an internet expert from the very beginning!). Erich
English very short summary: After the media sector and the stock exchange, the western sanctions are now hitting the Russian IT industry with full force. With Cogent and Lumen, two of the top five international Internet carriers are in the process of severing their major customers in Russia one after the other. Market leader Rostelecom, all mobile phone companies and the Internet group Yandex are losing their strongest connections to the world. On Friday, the London Internet Exchange announced that Rostelecom traffic would no longer be routed. All of this is a first in the history of the Internet, but the statements by the two carriers raise more questions than they answer.
________________________________________ Von: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] im Auftrag von Roberto Gaetano via At-Large [at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 14. März 2022 09:27 An: At Large Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance
Hi all
Yesterday I was in a teleconference (we were aware of the document referenced below) and I expressed the opinion that our actions during the war have to be guided by how we imagine the world after the war. No matter how painful the decisions during the war might be, we must be able not to jeopardise the long term vision and the related strategy.
I also happen to know people in international organisations - or, better said, in organisations that operate based on international collaboration, not necessarily only according to international treaties. Many have similar problems. ESA, for instance, while delaying the start of new projects to a more favourable moment, has to deal with the already ongoing projects, that see collaboration of the “western” countries with Russia. What should they do? Kick off all the Russians, close all collaboration with Russia, including the currently operating Space Lab? And CERN, while excluding Russians from positions of power (which is a political decision not severely impacting current operations), should they kick out the 100+ scientist or make their life difficult demanding to break their ties with their mother country (incidentally, most of them have signed a document against the war - but this is, as some have argued on this list, “just words”)? These organisations, as many others, deal with the current situation not losing sight of the strategic objectives. Why should ICANN act differently and, instead, cede to the temptation of taking actions that, while possibly satisfying the impression of doing something in favour of Ukraine, do irreversible damage to the possibility of maintaining open channels of communication and keeping trust in an organization that stands by its basic principles also in dark moments?
I am aware that on this list we have a lot of good people that happen to have widely different ideas about how to deal with the situation - all positions that I respect, but this does not prevent me from considering some of them counterproductive.
Cheers, Roberto
On 14.03.2022, at 06:47, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large
<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
wrote:
On 13/03/2022 23:40, Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote:
I would like to share a fascinating analysis I saw presented by someone named Alex on a different list. He posted his analysis in response to:
https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet...
"We believe it is now incumbent upon the Internet community to deliberate and make decisions in the face of humanitarian crises. We may not responsibly dismiss such crises without consideration, nor with consideration only for the self-interest of our community?s own direct constituents; instead, maturity of governance requires that self interests be weighed in the balance with broader moral and societal considerations. This document is the beginning of a global Internet governance conversation about the appropriate scope of sanctions, the feasibility of sanctions within the realm of our collective responsibility, and our moral imperative to minimize detrimental consequences."
And here is what Alex stated "In less abstract terms, the framing of community measures as Internet governance basically does exactly what the Russians and Chinese have been worried about for years - and increases their play, especially towards the undecided, that the Internet overall needs to be taken away from those who inherited by "accidents of history" and given to the "adults" (government - specifically ITU) to manage. The timing is even more counterproductive for the community as it just looked like the Russian candidate for the head of the ITU (who wants to take over the IANA function) was going to lose to the US candidate. Now that might be more difficult, and the rocky road to to WSIS+20 even more perilous."
I checked and the candidates up for election in August are indeed an American vs Russian: https://www.itu.int/pp22/en/elections/candidates/
Now imagine Putin plays chess and decides to play the long game with his intention of taking control of the Internet via his rep as Secretary-General in the ITU. He invades Ukraine knowing that the US and Western Europe response will be sanctions and cutting off different aspects of the Russian Internet. He can now go to numerous countries that might have voted for Doreen and convince them to place their vote for Rashid Ismailov.
Regards, Hank Nussbacher
I am very much in agreement with your sentiments.
The community of internet related bodies seems be clutching at their pearls, trying to protect abstract notions of "neutrality" that may or not even exist in reality, while real people are suffering real injuries and real deaths.
It may well be that the tools available, such as an effort to slow (but not stop) .ru DNS lookups, may have limited impact.
However, limited impacts cumulate; Gulliver was tied down in Lilliput by many tiny threads, any one of which he could have easily broken but in combination proved the stronger.
The community of internet bodies seems, like Pygmalian, to have fallen so deeply in love with its creation that their sense of ethics and morality has been benumbed; they love the statue they have carved over the living people upon which it is modeled.
--karl--
On 3/13/22 11:12 AM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote: It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies.
If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far?
Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed.
As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one.
That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions:
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia?
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine?
Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access.
My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well.
As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual.
So far, I have heard nothing but crickets.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large
<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large
<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
Andrei Kolesnikov ~ calendar bot _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thank you Andrei This is the input that everyone needs in this discussion. Cutting off .ru will - in the words of our Russian friend ‘worsen the situation’. So for those who are still advocating such action, please finally listen to those who will be most impacted - those who will be cut off from those who want the truth. And also please read other emails as to what ICANN IS doing. From Oksana - we in Ukraine highly appreciate all help and support from ICANN! We are buying just now StarLinks for ICANN money (to restore Internet in places where telecom towers and cables were destroyed by ruzzian bombs), ICANN experts are helping .ua heroes to keep safe our cyberspace. Huge amounts of humanitarian help - once again thank you very much! So ICANN is NOT doing nothing - it is helping with money and expertise. It is just not cutting off links to the truth. Holly
On Mar 14, 2022, at 8:45 PM, Andrey Kolesnikov via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Let me cool down a little bit the Russia disconnect. In fact, about 30% of the population uses the internet (youtube, facebook, telegram) to receive real information about the war. It's all about this layer of people not influenced by state propaganda. All local free media, such as Dozhd, Echo of Moscow, Meduza and others are already blocked. Facebook, Instagram were blocked a few days ago. Disconnection of Russia from international tier 1 hits those open minded people, not the ones who are using local digital platforms and won't know the truth about the war. This formula is very simple. The Internet is the only media which delivers real information across the borders. Disconnection worthen the situation, not improving it. Western blocking Russian state media is not doing any good as well, because the sound of Russian propaganda won't change the opinion worldwide. But this makes Russian government officials even more furious, blocking more and more international platforms inside Russia.
--andrei
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:20 PM SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: For German speakers ... https://fm4.orf.at/stories/3022642/ <https://fm4.orf.at/stories/3022642/> research from Erich Moechel (an internet expert from the very beginning!). Erich
English very short summary: After the media sector and the stock exchange, the western sanctions are now hitting the Russian IT industry with full force. With Cogent and Lumen, two of the top five international Internet carriers are in the process of severing their major customers in Russia one after the other. Market leader Rostelecom, all mobile phone companies and the Internet group Yandex are losing their strongest connections to the world. On Friday, the London Internet Exchange announced that Rostelecom traffic would no longer be routed. All of this is a first in the history of the Internet, but the statements by the two carriers raise more questions than they answer.
________________________________________ Von: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] im Auftrag von Roberto Gaetano via At-Large [at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] Gesendet: Montag, 14. März 2022 09:27 An: At Large Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance
Hi all
Yesterday I was in a teleconference (we were aware of the document referenced below) and I expressed the opinion that our actions during the war have to be guided by how we imagine the world after the war. No matter how painful the decisions during the war might be, we must be able not to jeopardise the long term vision and the related strategy.
I also happen to know people in international organisations - or, better said, in organisations that operate based on international collaboration, not necessarily only according to international treaties. Many have similar problems. ESA, for instance, while delaying the start of new projects to a more favourable moment, has to deal with the already ongoing projects, that see collaboration of the “western” countries with Russia. What should they do? Kick off all the Russians, close all collaboration with Russia, including the currently operating Space Lab? And CERN, while excluding Russians from positions of power (which is a political decision not severely impacting current operations), should they kick out the 100+ scientist or make their life difficult demanding to break their ties with their mother country (incidentally, most of them have signed a document against the war - but this is, as some have argued on this list, “just words”)? These organisations, as many others, deal with the current situation not losing sight of the strategic objectives. Why should ICANN act differently and, instead, cede to the temptation of taking actions that, while possibly satisfying the impression of doing something in favour of Ukraine, do irreversible damage to the possibility of maintaining open channels of communication and keeping trust in an organization that stands by its basic principles also in dark moments?
I am aware that on this list we have a lot of good people that happen to have widely different ideas about how to deal with the situation - all positions that I respect, but this does not prevent me from considering some of them counterproductive.
Cheers, Roberto
On 14.03.2022, at 06:47, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>> wrote:
On 13/03/2022 23:40, Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote:
I would like to share a fascinating analysis I saw presented by someone named Alex on a different list. He posted his analysis in response to:
https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet... <https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet...>
"We believe it is now incumbent upon the Internet community to deliberate and make decisions in the face of humanitarian crises. We may not responsibly dismiss such crises without consideration, nor with consideration only for the self-interest of our community?s own direct constituents; instead, maturity of governance requires that self interests be weighed in the balance with broader moral and societal considerations. This document is the beginning of a global Internet governance conversation about the appropriate scope of sanctions, the feasibility of sanctions within the realm of our collective responsibility, and our moral imperative to minimize detrimental consequences."
And here is what Alex stated "In less abstract terms, the framing of community measures as Internet governance basically does exactly what the Russians and Chinese have been worried about for years - and increases their play, especially towards the undecided, that the Internet overall needs to be taken away from those who inherited by "accidents of history" and given to the "adults" (government - specifically ITU) to manage. The timing is even more counterproductive for the community as it just looked like the Russian candidate for the head of the ITU (who wants to take over the IANA function) was going to lose to the US candidate. Now that might be more difficult, and the rocky road to to WSIS+20 even more perilous."
I checked and the candidates up for election in August are indeed an American vs Russian: https://www.itu.int/pp22/en/elections/candidates/ <https://www.itu.int/pp22/en/elections/candidates/>
Now imagine Putin plays chess and decides to play the long game with his intention of taking control of the Internet via his rep as Secretary-General in the ITU. He invades Ukraine knowing that the US and Western Europe response will be sanctions and cutting off different aspects of the Russian Internet. He can now go to numerous countries that might have voted for Doreen and convince them to place their vote for Rashid Ismailov.
Regards, Hank Nussbacher
I am very much in agreement with your sentiments.
The community of internet related bodies seems be clutching at their pearls, trying to protect abstract notions of "neutrality" that may or not even exist in reality, while real people are suffering real injuries and real deaths.
It may well be that the tools available, such as an effort to slow (but not stop) .ru DNS lookups, may have limited impact.
However, limited impacts cumulate; Gulliver was tied down in Lilliput by many tiny threads, any one of which he could have easily broken but in combination proved the stronger.
The community of internet bodies seems, like Pygmalian, to have fallen so deeply in love with its creation that their sense of ethics and morality has been benumbed; they love the statue they have carved over the living people upon which it is modeled.
--karl--
On 3/13/22 11:12 AM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote: It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies.
If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far?
Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed.
As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one.
That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions:
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia?
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine?
Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access.
My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well.
As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual.
So far, I have heard nothing but crickets.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>> wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls... <https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...>
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Andrei Kolesnikov ~ calendar bot _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
My .02 cents about sanctions, Internet and related actions. As most of us are in favor of keeping Internet for everyone and critical Internet resources alive, the picture change when serious direct threat is faced. Finland and Sweden currently face this threat. Several Russian authorities, including Putin, have said that if Finland and/or Sweden join NATO they will face severe consequences. This is a threat towards my country, our nation and me personally (+family). It is also a threat against the sovereignty of two EU member states. The choice to join or not is ours, not president of Russia to make. The same situation is faced by Ukraine today, and consequences can be seen in the news. Is Finland next in line? My grandparents experienced a couple of wars against Russia, does my generation need to experience the same again? I am not afraid, but I am worried. For those interested, my list of (digital) actions that could make a difference. I do not encourage to use any of them, just pointing out that there exists several possibilities if things escalate: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jormamellin_leaders-digital-ukraine-activity-... Jome ----------------- Jorma Mellin Trustee SIY ry / ISOC Finland Chapter jorma@jmellin.net (tel. +358 50 9944762)
On 14 Mar 2022, at 22.01, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Thank you Andrei
This is the input that everyone needs in this discussion. Cutting off .ru will - in the words of our Russian friend ‘worsen the situation’. So for those who are still advocating such action, please finally listen to those who will be most impacted - those who will be cut off from those who want the truth.
And also please read other emails as to what ICANN IS doing. From Oksana -
we in Ukraine highly appreciate all help and support from ICANN! We are buying just now StarLinks for ICANN money (to restore Internet in places where telecom towers and cables were destroyed by ruzzian bombs), ICANN experts are helping .ua heroes to keep safe our cyberspace. Huge amounts of humanitarian help - once again thank you very much!
So ICANN is NOT doing nothing - it is helping with money and expertise. It is just not cutting off links to the truth.
Holly
On Mar 14, 2022, at 8:45 PM, Andrey Kolesnikov via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Let me cool down a little bit the Russia disconnect. In fact, about 30% of the population uses the internet (youtube, facebook, telegram) to receive real information about the war. It's all about this layer of people not influenced by state propaganda. All local free media, such as Dozhd, Echo of Moscow, Meduza and others are already blocked. Facebook, Instagram were blocked a few days ago. Disconnection of Russia from international tier 1 hits those open minded people, not the ones who are using local digital platforms and won't know the truth about the war. This formula is very simple. The Internet is the only media which delivers real information across the borders. Disconnection worthen the situation, not improving it. Western blocking Russian state media is not doing any good as well, because the sound of Russian propaganda won't change the opinion worldwide. But this makes Russian government officials even more furious, blocking more and more international platforms inside Russia.
--andrei
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:20 PM SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: For German speakers ... https://fm4.orf.at/stories/3022642/ research from Erich Moechel (an internet expert from the very beginning!). Erich
English very short summary: After the media sector and the stock exchange, the western sanctions are now hitting the Russian IT industry with full force. With Cogent and Lumen, two of the top five international Internet carriers are in the process of severing their major customers in Russia one after the other. Market leader Rostelecom, all mobile phone companies and the Internet group Yandex are losing their strongest connections to the world. On Friday, the London Internet Exchange announced that Rostelecom traffic would no longer be routed. All of this is a first in the history of the Internet, but the statements by the two carriers raise more questions than they answer.
________________________________________ Von: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] im Auftrag von Roberto Gaetano via At-Large [at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 14. März 2022 09:27 An: At Large Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance
Hi all
Yesterday I was in a teleconference (we were aware of the document referenced below) and I expressed the opinion that our actions during the war have to be guided by how we imagine the world after the war. No matter how painful the decisions during the war might be, we must be able not to jeopardise the long term vision and the related strategy.
I also happen to know people in international organisations - or, better said, in organisations that operate based on international collaboration, not necessarily only according to international treaties. Many have similar problems. ESA, for instance, while delaying the start of new projects to a more favourable moment, has to deal with the already ongoing projects, that see collaboration of the “western” countries with Russia. What should they do? Kick off all the Russians, close all collaboration with Russia, including the currently operating Space Lab? And CERN, while excluding Russians from positions of power (which is a political decision not severely impacting current operations), should they kick out the 100+ scientist or make their life difficult demanding to break their ties with their mother country (incidentally, most of them have signed a document against the war - but this is, as some have argued on this list, “just words”)? These organisations, as many others, deal with the current situation not losing sight of the strategic objectives. Why should ICANN act differently and, instead, cede to the temptation of taking actions that, while possibly satisfying the impression of doing something in favour of Ukraine, do irreversible damage to the possibility of maintaining open channels of communication and keeping trust in an organization that stands by its basic principles also in dark moments?
I am aware that on this list we have a lot of good people that happen to have widely different ideas about how to deal with the situation - all positions that I respect, but this does not prevent me from considering some of them counterproductive.
Cheers, Roberto
On 14.03.2022, at 06:47, Hank Nussbacher via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
On 13/03/2022 23:40, Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote:
I would like to share a fascinating analysis I saw presented by someone named Alex on a different list. He posted his analysis in response to:
https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet...
"We believe it is now incumbent upon the Internet community to deliberate and make decisions in the face of humanitarian crises. We may not responsibly dismiss such crises without consideration, nor with consideration only for the self-interest of our community?s own direct constituents; instead, maturity of governance requires that self interests be weighed in the balance with broader moral and societal considerations. This document is the beginning of a global Internet governance conversation about the appropriate scope of sanctions, the feasibility of sanctions within the realm of our collective responsibility, and our moral imperative to minimize detrimental consequences."
And here is what Alex stated "In less abstract terms, the framing of community measures as Internet governance basically does exactly what the Russians and Chinese have been worried about for years - and increases their play, especially towards the undecided, that the Internet overall needs to be taken away from those who inherited by "accidents of history" and given to the "adults" (government - specifically ITU) to manage. The timing is even more counterproductive for the community as it just looked like the Russian candidate for the head of the ITU (who wants to take over the IANA function) was going to lose to the US candidate. Now that might be more difficult, and the rocky road to to WSIS+20 even more perilous."
I checked and the candidates up for election in August are indeed an American vs Russian: https://www.itu.int/pp22/en/elections/candidates/
Now imagine Putin plays chess and decides to play the long game with his intention of taking control of the Internet via his rep as Secretary-General in the ITU. He invades Ukraine knowing that the US and Western Europe response will be sanctions and cutting off different aspects of the Russian Internet. He can now go to numerous countries that might have voted for Doreen and convince them to place their vote for Rashid Ismailov.
Regards, Hank Nussbacher
I am very much in agreement with your sentiments.
The community of internet related bodies seems be clutching at their pearls, trying to protect abstract notions of "neutrality" that may or not even exist in reality, while real people are suffering real injuries and real deaths.
It may well be that the tools available, such as an effort to slow (but not stop) .ru DNS lookups, may have limited impact.
However, limited impacts cumulate; Gulliver was tied down in Lilliput by many tiny threads, any one of which he could have easily broken but in combination proved the stronger.
The community of internet bodies seems, like Pygmalian, to have fallen so deeply in love with its creation that their sense of ethics and morality has been benumbed; they love the statue they have carved over the living people upon which it is modeled.
--karl--
On 3/13/22 11:12 AM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote: It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies.
If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far?
Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed.
As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one.
That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions:
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia?
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine?
Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access.
My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well.
As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual.
So far, I have heard nothing but crickets.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Andrei Kolesnikov ~ calendar bot _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Except that no one entity really has much control over the internet. And if someone acted as if they did in an undesirable way its components could be re-invented, granted at some temporary inconvenience but such are trade-offs. Personally I doubt Putin cares much about control of the internet other than for his own internal political purposes. He's probably far more interested in challenging the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, particularly the petrodollar. And that's something he could get the members of OPEC+ and China on board with and may well be what's behind all this. Executive Summary: As a small group of professionals highly vested in the internet's infrastructure I think we're self-aggrandizing. On March 14, 2022 at 07:47 at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org (Hank Nussbacher via At-Large) wrote:
On 13/03/2022 23:40, Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote:
I would like to share a fascinating analysis I saw presented by someone named Alex on a different list. He posted his analysis in response to:
https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet...
"We believe it is now incumbent upon the Internet community to deliberate and make decisions in the face of humanitarian crises. We may not responsibly dismiss such crises without consideration, nor with consideration only for the self-interest of our community?s own direct constituents; instead, maturity of governance requires that self interests be weighed in the balance with broader moral and societal considerations. This document is the beginning of a global Internet governance conversation about the appropriate scope of sanctions, the feasibility of sanctions within the realm of our collective responsibility, and our moral imperative to minimize detrimental consequences."
And here is what Alex stated "In less abstract terms, the framing of community measures as Internet governance basically does exactly what the Russians and Chinese have been worried about for years - and increases their play, especially towards the undecided, that the Internet overall needs to be taken away from those who inherited by "accidents of history" and given to the "adults" (government - specifically ITU) to manage. The timing is even more counterproductive for the community as it just looked like the Russian candidate for the head of the ITU (who wants to take over the IANA function) was going to lose to the US candidate. Now that might be more difficult, and the rocky road to to WSIS+20 even more perilous."
I checked and the candidates up for election in August are indeed an American vs Russian: https://www.itu.int/pp22/en/elections/candidates/
Now imagine Putin plays chess and decides to play the long game with his intention of taking control of the Internet via his rep as Secretary-General in the ITU. He invades Ukraine knowing that the US and Western Europe response will be sanctions and cutting off different aspects of the Russian Internet. He can now go to numerous countries that might have voted for Doreen and convince them to place their vote for Rashid Ismailov.
Regards, Hank Nussbacher
I am very much in agreement with your sentiments.
The community of internet related bodies seems be clutching at their pearls, trying to protect abstract notions of "neutrality" that may or not even exist in reality, while real people are suffering real injuries and real deaths.
It may well be that the tools available, such as an effort to slow (but not stop) .ru DNS lookups, may have limited impact.
However, limited impacts cumulate; Gulliver was tied down in Lilliput by many tiny threads, any one of which he could have easily broken but in combination proved the stronger.
The community of internet bodies seems, like Pygmalian, to have fallen so deeply in love with its creation that their sense of ethics and morality has been benumbed; they love the statue they have carved over the living people upon which it is modeled.
--karl--
On 3/13/22 11:12 AM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote:
It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies.
If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far?
Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed.
As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one.
That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions:
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia?
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine?
Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access.
My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well.
As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual.
So far, I have heard nothing but crickets.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls...
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- -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*
On 15/03/2022 03:28, Barry Shein via At-Large wrote:
Personally I doubt Putin cares much about control of the internet other than for his own internal political purposes.
Internet is only but a small subset of the Russian IT market, which stands (stood) at 2.7% of GDP, employing only 1.7% of the population. Yes, there were 124 million Internet users, but Internet is not, economically, as important to Russia's economy as it is in the West. Source (in happier times): https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/russia-information-communica... Putin would probably rather see the Internet shut down, so as to have full control over propaganda. Much like in North Korea. Will Russian people allow this? Remember the Internet shut down in Egypt - and the Role of media disruption on 28 January 2011? Kindest regards, Olivier
EURALO communique on Ukraine was written by EURALO Board without invitation of representatives of two Ukrainian ALSes. This is absolutely ruzzist approach - try to solve the Ukrainian issue without the participation of Ukrainians. Do other members of At-Large community support such approach? Who has said "that At-Large unites people from all over the world by common work to present and protect the end users interests"? And once again and again - please, refocus your discussion from Ukraine (our heroes do protect our cyberspace, and we really have a lot of support) to the protection of "One World. One Internet" Oksana On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 9:31 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
On 15/03/2022 03:28, Barry Shein via At-Large wrote:
Personally I doubt Putin cares much about control of the internet other than for his own internal political purposes.
Internet is only but a small subset of the Russian IT market, which stands (stood) at 2.7% of GDP, employing only 1.7% of the population. Yes, there were 124 million Internet users, but Internet is not, economically, as important to Russia's economy as it is in the West. Source (in happier times): https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/russia-information-communica...
Putin would probably rather see the Internet shut down, so as to have full control over propaganda. Much like in North Korea. Will Russian people allow this? Remember the Internet shut down in Egypt - and the Role of media disruption on 28 January 2011?
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 1:21 PM Wolfgang Kleinwächter via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Executive Order on measures to boost IT industry in Russia The President signed the Executive Order *On Measures to Ensure the Accelerated Development of the IT Industry in the Russian Federation*.
Read the Order. This is as much about reducing the brain drain of skilled professionals from Russia as any "boosting" possible (without foreign computers, chips, fabs, software, etc). - Evan
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 2:12 PM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
It's worse than that. ICANN won't even take the very minor diplomatic steps taken globally in every other sector that, while not cutting .RU out of the root, would still help to enforce an isolation that in aggregate may help bring the country to change its path. ICANN could deny registration of Russian nationals to ICANN meetings or participation in ongoing policy activities, or even take the miniscule step of refusing to subsidize their travel. Hell, it still won't take action on the rogue .SU domain after all these years. And ALAC is quite fine with such inaction, it's had plenty of time to consider options to support community isolation while still keeping the data flowing. But here, in the mindset of all or nothing, both ICANN and ALAC have actively chosen nothing. Pathetic. Of course there is one more scenario that nobody here will like. As I like to remind people, there is no international treaty governing ICANN and the IANA "transition" was bullshit, so ICANN remains subject to US (and as we saw in the case of .ORG, California) authority. It would not surprise me at all if forcing ICANN to cut off Russia remains a back-pocket option of the US State Department as an enhanced sanction (now that they've already cut off Russian caviar). ICANN's refusal to do ANYTHING only encourages and legitimizes such action, but its low external respect guarantees that nobody outside the bubble will fight for it. - Evan
Evan The majority of our At-Large members continue to stand by our remit, and support the ISOC and ICANN calls to minimise any risk to the continued use of the internet by Internet end-users universally regardless of the politics of their countries. This is not "doing nothing". Maureen On Sun, 13 Mar 2022, 1:04 pm Evan Leibovitch via At-Large, < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 2:12 PM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
It's worse than that. ICANN won't even take the very minor diplomatic steps taken globally in every other sector that, while not cutting .RU out of the root, would still help to enforce an isolation that in aggregate may help bring the country to change its path. ICANN could deny registration of Russian nationals to ICANN meetings or participation in ongoing policy activities, or even take the miniscule step of refusing to subsidize their travel. Hell, it still won't take action on the rogue .SU domain after all these years. And ALAC is quite fine with such inaction, it's had plenty of time to consider options to support community isolation while still keeping the data flowing.
But here, in the mindset of all or nothing, both ICANN and ALAC have actively chosen nothing. Pathetic.
Of course there is one more scenario that nobody here will like. As I like to remind people, there is no international treaty governing ICANN and the IANA "transition" was bullshit, so ICANN remains subject to US (and as we saw in the case of .ORG, California) authority. It would not surprise me at all if forcing ICANN to cut off Russia remains a back-pocket option of the US State Department as an enhanced sanction (now that they've already cut off Russian caviar). ICANN's refusal to do ANYTHING only encourages and legitimizes such action, but its low external respect guarantees that nobody outside the bubble will fight for it.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 7:26 PM Maureen Hilyard via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Evan
The majority of our At-Large members continue to stand by our remit, and support the ISOC and ICANN calls to minimise any risk to the continued use of the internet by Internet end-users universally regardless of the politics of their countries. This is not "doing nothing".
Says you. The world will judge if what you have done constitutes anything of remit, and you will find yourselves on the wrong side of history. I stand by what I said. - Evan
Dear ALL, unfortunately, in particular for our friends in Ukraine, war as an option for peace is back. Terrible ... but we have to face it and studying again Clausewitz. Here it is clear: The Russian Federation cannot win and achieve its goals against the overwhelming majority of States, businesses, NGOs and civil society. It is a very sad fact of live that many die due to coincidence and no general cares much about it as individual tragedies are handled with a nice procedure (in Vienna we call it: ein feuchter Händedruck mit Entschuldigung, a wet handshare with saying sorry). Ukrainians have got this "shit card" (the Germans use Arschkarte). Very sad, but that is war, chosen by Putin as a tool of politics. Rule of law, smart sanctions, and strongest willingness to go to justice, are our strongest threats. No concessions, no peace, ... and the option of a humanitarian intervention (á la Serbia) still living. International lawyers are well aware that the system of collective security sees the biggest crisis with fundamental consequences. Iif collective security is blocked, collective self-defence is back but not in the sense of coalitions without any contact or business during conflict (like in the old world of war and peace). It is much more like the wars in the middle ages. Thus, indifferent sanctions do not work. Russia is not the Putin Government, and States have many faces. The Russian Federation is a nuclear power and prohibits others from having them. This Non-Proliferation Treaty works well besides being unfair to the Have-Nots. With the threat of Putin, the whole regime must be reconsidered. It is impossible to accept that a nuclear power can use conventional war without consequences. In this case, it is legally so clear. Ukraine was a nuclear power, disarmed, got guarantees and Putin violated this fundamental treaties on Ukrainian security. As ICANN and ALAC, we focus on civil society, and have to do everything to support them. One world, one internet is still the solution. Also rough states have a - maybe very small and silent - civil society considering other options of government. We do not do this for supporting Putin - no. We do it because the options of winning this conflict in the interest of Ukrainians are bigger. Best, Erich SCHWEIGHOFER Erich ao. Univ.-Prof. (UniWien, Rechtsinformatik, Europarecht, Internationales Multistakeholderrecht) Mag. rer.soc.oec. Dr. iur. Dr. rer.soc.oec. Lg.IntStud (freigestellt für die Europäische Kommission, Rue de la Loi 130, 1040 Brussel BE, erich.schweighofer@ec.europa.eu, Tel. +32 2 29 52283) Rechtsinformatik an der Uni-Wien Sprecher des Vorstands der ARI Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik, Juridicum, Universität Wien Vorsitz: iris-conferences.eu Präsident: WZRI LII-Austria CEILI RI@ ADRI Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung (auch Abteilung für Völkerrecht), Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, Zi. 546, 1010 Wien AT, Tel. +43 1 4277 35305 (Anrufbeantworter) https://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at, https://rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY, https://iris-conferences.eu, https://wzri.eu office@rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY; office@iris-conferences.eu; rechtsinformatik@univie.ac.at; Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at Bitte um Teilnahme und Beiträge: IRI§22 https://iris-conferences.eu, Frühlingssemester: Event Rechtslogik in der Praxis Do 31.03.22, 16-19 Uhr (gemeinsam mit ReMeP) Jusletter IT http://jusletter-it.eu Schriftenreihe Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik, rechtsinformatik.ACADEMY & IRIS-Journal: https://irisj.eu PHAIDRA ________________________________________ Von: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] im Auftrag von Evan Leibovitch via At-Large [at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Gesendet: Montag, 14. März 2022 03:23 An: Maureen Hilyard Cc: At-Large Worldwide Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 7:26 PM Maureen Hilyard via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: Evan The majority of our At-Large members continue to stand by our remit, and support the ISOC and ICANN calls to minimise any risk to the continued use of the internet by Internet end-users universally regardless of the politics of their countries. This is not "doing nothing". Says you. The world will judge if what you have done constitutes anything of remit, and you will find yourselves on the wrong side of history. I stand by what I said. - Evan
Thank you Maureen for your clear message. You are speaking for the ICANN At-Large community and I’m one of them. Best
Le 14 mars 2022 à 12:26 AM, Maureen Hilyard via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> a écrit :
Evan
The majority of our At-Large members continue to stand by our remit, and support the ISOC and ICANN calls to minimise any risk to the continued use of the internet by Internet end-users universally regardless of the politics of their countries. This is not "doing nothing".
Maureen
On Sun, 13 Mar 2022, 1:04 pm Evan Leibovitch via At-Large, <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 2:12 PM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
It's worse than that. ICANN won't even take the very minor diplomatic steps taken globally in every other sector that, while not cutting .RU out of the root, would still help to enforce an isolation that in aggregate may help bring the country to change its path. ICANN could deny registration of Russian nationals to ICANN meetings or participation in ongoing policy activities, or even take the miniscule step of refusing to subsidize their travel. Hell, it still won't take action on the rogue .SU domain after all these years. And ALAC is quite fine with such inaction, it's had plenty of time to consider options to support community isolation while still keeping the data flowing.
But here, in the mindset of all or nothing, both ICANN and ALAC have actively chosen nothing. Pathetic.
Of course there is one more scenario that nobody here will like. As I like to remind people, there is no international treaty governing ICANN and the IANA "transition" was bullshit, so ICANN remains subject to US (and as we saw in the case of .ORG, California) authority. It would not surprise me at all if forcing ICANN to cut off Russia remains a back-pocket option of the US State Department as an enhanced sanction (now that they've already cut off Russian caviar). ICANN's refusal to do ANYTHING only encourages and legitimizes such action, but its low external respect guarantees that nobody outside the bubble will fight for it.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
+1 Tijani and completely agree with Maureen’s statement. Regards, Amrita From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA via At-Large Sent: 14 March 2022 14:03 To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance Thank you Maureen for your clear message. You are speaking for the ICANN At-Large community and I’m one of them. Best Le 14 mars 2022 à 12:26 AM, Maureen Hilyard via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > a écrit : Evan The majority of our At-Large members continue to stand by our remit, and support the ISOC and ICANN calls to minimise any risk to the continued use of the internet by Internet end-users universally regardless of the politics of their countries. This is not "doing nothing". Maureen On Sun, 13 Mar 2022, 1:04 pm Evan Leibovitch via At-Large, <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > wrote: On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 2:12 PM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > wrote: It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group. It's worse than that. ICANN won't even take the very minor diplomatic steps taken globally in every other sector that, while not cutting .RU out of the root, would still help to enforce an isolation that in aggregate may help bring the country to change its path. ICANN could deny registration of Russian nationals to ICANN meetings or participation in ongoing policy activities, or even take the miniscule step of refusing to subsidize their travel. Hell, it still won't take action on the rogue .SU domain after all these years. And ALAC is quite fine with such inaction, it's had plenty of time to consider options to support community isolation while still keeping the data flowing. But here, in the mindset of all or nothing, both ICANN and ALAC have actively chosen nothing. Pathetic. Of course there is one more scenario that nobody here will like. As I like to remind people, there is no international treaty governing ICANN and the IANA "transition" was bullshit, so ICANN remains subject to US (and as we saw in the case of .ORG, California) authority. It would not surprise me at all if forcing ICANN to cut off Russia remains a back-pocket option of the US State Department as an enhanced sanction (now that they've already cut off Russian caviar). ICANN's refusal to do ANYTHING only encourages and legitimizes such action, but its low external respect guarantees that nobody outside the bubble will fight for it. - Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi everybody. As I see one of our goals is to increase our potential and our ranks with individual members and ALSs, who have significantly thinned and become even more silent during the pandemic time. Now this catastrophe (I can't find any other words, there is a huge pain inside only) apart from all the horrors creates a precedent of isolation and exclusion from the agenda of the active core of representatives of Russia (organizations and individuals). I think it is necessary to clarify for ourselves - is At-Large a right place for such initiatives and for this fight against the part of the community? Do we remember that At-Large unites people from all over the world by common work to present and protect the end users interests and maybe not the right place for such discussions? +1 to Maureen, Tijani, Alan Levin and others respected friends and colleagues. Put other nations and countries in the place of the words "Russian" or "Russia" in your emails mentally. Do you think it is possible to phase out other nations and countries from the agenda and the Internet landscape? Or is it a target case? Separately, I would like to note that respected members of the discussion who advocate the exclusion of the .RU from the register of TLD and the exclusion of Russians from Internet interaction act in exceptional harmony with those against whom they are fighting here. It looks to me in the near future (not now) we should care for our further abilities to work together within the framework of the At-Large (members, ALSes, partners). Officially we don't see any problems. To be honest we are not sure and we`ll definitely see it definitely. I would like to initiate this dialogue or at least the intentions. We probably should have proper communication inside and outside the ICANN community. Maybe At-Large becomes the an absolutely unique where people with different cultural and mental codes are united in work, interaction and friendship and stop xenophobia, racism, extremism. Maybe it will be the only one space like this. Via this email I bring the most sincere compassion to our members and people from Ukraine and other countries who are affected. Please take care of yourself. Sincerely, Natalia Filina Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russian Federation пн, 14 мар. 2022 г. в 16:54, Amrita Choudhury via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>:
+1 Tijani and completely agree with Maureen’s statement.
Regards,
Amrita
*From:* At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Tijani BEN JEMAA via At-Large *Sent:* 14 March 2022 14:03 *To:* Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Cc:* At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance
Thank you Maureen for your clear message. You are speaking for the ICANN At-Large community and I’m one of them.
Best
Le 14 mars 2022 à 12:26 AM, Maureen Hilyard via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> a écrit :
Evan
The majority of our At-Large members continue to stand by our remit, and support the ISOC and ICANN calls to minimise any risk to the continued use of the internet by Internet end-users universally regardless of the politics of their countries. This is not "doing nothing".
Maureen
On Sun, 13 Mar 2022, 1:04 pm Evan Leibovitch via At-Large, < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 2:12 PM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
It's worse than that. ICANN won't even take the very minor diplomatic steps taken globally in every other sector that, while not cutting .RU out of the root, would still help to enforce an isolation that in aggregate may help bring the country to change its path. ICANN could deny registration of Russian nationals to ICANN meetings or participation in ongoing policy activities, or even take the miniscule step of refusing to subsidize their travel. Hell, it still won't take action on the rogue .SU domain after all these years. And ALAC is quite fine with such inaction, it's had plenty of time to consider options to support community isolation while still keeping the data flowing.
But here, in the mindset of all or nothing, both ICANN and ALAC have actively chosen nothing. Pathetic.
Of course there is one more scenario that nobody here will like. As I like to remind people, there is no international treaty governing ICANN and the IANA "transition" was bullshit, so ICANN remains subject to US (and as we saw in the case of .ORG, California) authority. It would not surprise me at all if forcing ICANN to cut off Russia remains a back-pocket option of the US State Department as an enhanced sanction (now that they've already cut off Russian caviar). ICANN's refusal to do ANYTHING only encourages and legitimizes such action, but its low external respect guarantees that nobody outside the bubble will fight for it.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Natalia -thanks for your super important perspective. Keep up the good work. On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:44 AM Natalia Filina via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Hi everybody.
As I see one of our goals is to increase our potential and our ranks with individual members and ALSs, who have significantly thinned and become even more silent during the pandemic time. Now this catastrophe (I can't find any other words, there is a huge pain inside only) apart from all the horrors creates a precedent of isolation and exclusion from the agenda of the active core of representatives of Russia (organizations and individuals).
I think it is necessary to clarify for ourselves - is At-Large a right place for such initiatives and for this fight against the part of the community? Do we remember that At-Large unites people from all over the world by common work to present and protect the end users interests and maybe not the right place for such discussions? +1 to Maureen, Tijani, Alan Levin and others respected friends and colleagues. Put other nations and countries in the place of the words "Russian" or "Russia" in your emails mentally. Do you think it is possible to phase out other nations and countries from the agenda and the Internet landscape? Or is it a target case?
Separately, I would like to note that respected members of the discussion who advocate the exclusion of the .RU from the register of TLD and the exclusion of Russians from Internet interaction act in exceptional harmony with those against whom they are fighting here.
It looks to me in the near future (not now) we should care for our further abilities to work together within the framework of the At-Large (members, ALSes, partners). Officially we don't see any problems. To be honest we are not sure and we`ll definitely see it definitely.
I would like to initiate this dialogue or at least the intentions. We probably should have proper communication inside and outside the ICANN community. Maybe At-Large becomes the an absolutely unique where people with different cultural and mental codes are united in work, interaction and friendship and stop xenophobia, racism, extremism. Maybe it will be the only one space like this.
Via this email I bring the most sincere compassion to our members and people from Ukraine and other countries who are affected.
Please take care of yourself.
Sincerely, Natalia Filina
Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo
+7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russian Federation
пн, 14 мар. 2022 г. в 16:54, Amrita Choudhury via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>:
+1 Tijani and completely agree with Maureen’s statement.
Regards,
Amrita
*From:* At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Tijani BEN JEMAA via At-Large *Sent:* 14 March 2022 14:03 *To:* Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Cc:* At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance
Thank you Maureen for your clear message. You are speaking for the ICANN At-Large community and I’m one of them.
Best
Le 14 mars 2022 à 12:26 AM, Maureen Hilyard via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> a écrit :
Evan
The majority of our At-Large members continue to stand by our remit, and support the ISOC and ICANN calls to minimise any risk to the continued use of the internet by Internet end-users universally regardless of the politics of their countries. This is not "doing nothing".
Maureen
On Sun, 13 Mar 2022, 1:04 pm Evan Leibovitch via At-Large, < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 2:12 PM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
It's worse than that. ICANN won't even take the very minor diplomatic steps taken globally in every other sector that, while not cutting .RU out of the root, would still help to enforce an isolation that in aggregate may help bring the country to change its path. ICANN could deny registration of Russian nationals to ICANN meetings or participation in ongoing policy activities, or even take the miniscule step of refusing to subsidize their travel. Hell, it still won't take action on the rogue .SU domain after all these years. And ALAC is quite fine with such inaction, it's had plenty of time to consider options to support community isolation while still keeping the data flowing.
But here, in the mindset of all or nothing, both ICANN and ALAC have actively chosen nothing. Pathetic.
Of course there is one more scenario that nobody here will like. As I like to remind people, there is no international treaty governing ICANN and the IANA "transition" was bullshit, so ICANN remains subject to US (and as we saw in the case of .ORG, California) authority. It would not surprise me at all if forcing ICANN to cut off Russia remains a back-pocket option of the US State Department as an enhanced sanction (now that they've already cut off Russian caviar). ICANN's refusal to do ANYTHING only encourages and legitimizes such action, but its low external respect guarantees that nobody outside the bubble will fight for it.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:26 PM Judith Hellerstein via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: What countries should be doing is instead putting their efforts into
getting international organizations to limit the types of leadership positions that Russia can hold in any International organization.
Thank you Judith, I agree. As it most certainly is an international organization, what kind of leadership is ALAC asking ICANN to show -- or doing itself --- in this regard? - Evan
I agree with your anger and frustration. I want to mention another bit of reality that is oft missed in discussions. ICANN has created a lot of machinery and procedures. A lot of people think of that machinery as if it were some sort of mini-government when, in reality it is nothing more than the mutable organization chart of a private corporation. There is also a lot of belief that ccTLDs are somehow "sovereign" or owned in some way by the nation each represents. They are not, particularly as exhibited by active ccTLDs that represent nation-states that no longer exist (.su) With regard to the massive ICANN machinery: Because ICANN intentionally created itself to not have "members" (or shareholders) the responsibility and authority of the corporation is vested entirely into the board of directors. Although pieces of that authority (but not the responsibility) can be temporarily delegated, that delegation can be changed or removed at the whim of the board of directors at any time. There is no body of members or shareholders who have authority to stop the board from engaging in any action that is not unlawful. (There may be some authority in creditors, but usually only in bulk transfers of assets or liquidation proceedings.) In other words, what ICANN's board has created ICANN's board can un-create, including all of ICANN subsidiary bodies, its staff, and its executives. Along the way ICANN might have to pay out some contractual termination fees to executives or engage in some contractual litigation, but that is 100% within the power of the board of directors. So if the ICANN board decides to drop or redelegate .ru then there is no body within ICANN that can stop it. Such an action might trigger litigation in a California court for breach of contract by the current holder of .ru, and probably also a request for an injunction which may or not succeed.. Once ICANN decides to move forward ICANN can instruct Verisign to make the appropriate modifications to the root zone file. Verisign could refuse which would engender a contract dispute. And if modified that zone file will then pass onto the root server operators who may or may not chose to conform. Notice that there is no national or international authority in this chain. --karl--
Further to what Karl says, ccTLDs are not beholden to ICANN, whether they are government-run or not. Many of them have signed lightweight memoranda of understanding or letters of co-operation that really don’t really restrict their actions in any way. So ccTLDs are free to issue their own statements and take their own actions. Even gTLD owners are free to say something. But, again, crickets. What is it with this industry? McDonald’s abandoned a 30-year business plan. BP and Shell Oil have abandoned many billions of dollars. These are hardly what many of us would consider moral businesses, but apparently they are more sensitive to what internet users want than ICANN is. Because I assure you that everyone who buys a Big Mac or fills up their car with gasoline, is an internet user…. Or maybe BP, authors of the Gulf of Mexico; and Shell, who have poisoned half of southern Nigeria; and McDonalds, who have caused more heart attacks and diabetes than any other company on the planet — maybe they are ignoring public opinion and just have a more advanced moral compass than ICANN. A shameful comparison in either case.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 4:49 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
I agree with your anger and frustration.
I want to mention another bit of reality that is oft missed in discussions.
ICANN has created a lot of machinery and procedures. A lot of people think of that machinery as if it were some sort of mini-government when, in reality it is nothing more than the mutable organization chart of a private corporation.
There is also a lot of belief that ccTLDs are somehow "sovereign" or owned in some way by the nation each represents. They are not, particularly as exhibited by active ccTLDs that represent nation-states that no longer exist (.su)
With regard to the massive ICANN machinery: Because ICANN intentionally created itself to not have "members" (or shareholders) the responsibility and authority of the corporation is vested entirely into the board of directors. Although pieces of that authority (but not the responsibility) can be temporarily delegated, that delegation can be changed or removed at the whim of the board of directors at any time. There is no body of members or shareholders who have authority to stop the board from engaging in any action that is not unlawful. (There may be some authority in creditors, but usually only in bulk transfers of assets or liquidation proceedings.)
In other words, what ICANN's board has created ICANN's board can un-create, including all of ICANN subsidiary bodies, its staff, and its executives.
Along the way ICANN might have to pay out some contractual termination fees to executives or engage in some contractual litigation, but that is 100% within the power of the board of directors.
So if the ICANN board decides to drop or redelegate .ru then there is no body within ICANN that can stop it. Such an action might trigger litigation in a California court for breach of contract by the current holder of .ru, and probably also a request for an injunction which may or not succeed..
Once ICANN decides to move forward ICANN can instruct Verisign to make the appropriate modifications to the root zone file. Verisign could refuse which would engender a contract dispute. And if modified that zone file will then pass onto the root server operators who may or may not chose to conform.
Notice that there is no national or international authority in this chain.
--karl--
Minor diplomacy? If only. They won’t even issue a statement. It’s so bad that the very same governments that voted in the UN to condemn Russia’s attack won’t say anything in the GAC. Why? Apparently everyone involved in ICANN has been eaten by the false logic of self-perpetuation. As you note, the irony is that this craven evasion of responsibility will do more to show why ICANN should be scrapped or reformed or ignored than anything any of its enemies could have dreamt up. ICANN / IANA / ISOC, with the millions handed to them annually by the users of the internet, do nothing to protect those users. They won't address the cataclysmic event happening in the world right now, except to wring their hands for a bit, offer lame regrets, then get back to important things like picking the new board members to be anointed by the undemocratic Nom-Com, or figuring out how to sell .ORG to private equity firms. Thermobaric munitions and cluster bombs are being used today against defenseless civilians. Meanwhile we asked to cheer ICANN and IANA for making sure that that ordinary Russians internet users can continue to play online video games and post photos of their cats without interruption.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 4:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 2:12 PM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
It's worse than that. ICANN won't even take the very minor diplomatic steps taken globally in every other sector that, while not cutting .RU out of the root, would still help to enforce an isolation that in aggregate may help bring the country to change its path. ICANN could deny registration of Russian nationals to ICANN meetings or participation in ongoing policy activities, or even take the miniscule step of refusing to subsidize their travel. Hell, it still won't take action on the rogue .SU domain after all these years. And ALAC is quite fine with such inaction, it's had plenty of time to consider options to support community isolation while still keeping the data flowing.
But here, in the mindset of all or nothing, both ICANN and ALAC have actively chosen nothing. Pathetic.
Of course there is one more scenario that nobody here will like. As I like to remind people, there is no international treaty governing ICANN and the IANA "transition" was bullshit, so ICANN remains subject to US (and as we saw in the case of .ORG, California) authority. It would not surprise me at all if forcing ICANN to cut off Russia remains a back-pocket option of the US State Department as an enhanced sanction (now that they've already cut off Russian caviar). ICANN's refusal to do ANYTHING only encourages and legitimizes such action, but its low external respect guarantees that nobody outside the bubble will fight for it.
- Evan
Isn't the core problem that there really is no real internet governance? It seems to me that everyone, ISOC is a good example, is just making policy statements. It's not even clear to whom other than some general public audience. Technically yes, ICANN has "the passwords" to pull .ru etc from the root servers. But do they have the authority? And if not who has the authority? It would seem such a decision would need to be coordinated among several organizations such as the US State Dept, EU Foreign Affairs Council, etc. Otherwise it might do more harm than good. Particularly in timing vis a vis other sanctions etc., and possible negative consequences. Something important in all these sanctions is they have been scheduled to increase pressure over time, not just imposed as they came to mind. Again, under what precise circumstances would those ccTLDs be returned to service, if ever? What are the conditions? A ceasefire? Troop withdrawal? Ukrainian surrender? ...??? Should Russia be warned first and allowed to react? Who would do that? By what channels? Just because one can kick over the chessboard doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. On March 13, 2022 at 11:12 at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org (Antony Van Couvering via At-Large) wrote:
It’s appears that there is no appetite within this community to block .ru, or to do something substantive to help Ukraine in its hour of need, or even to say something about it. Finally, something that unites a normally fractious group.
I would challenge people to come up with something else that would hurt Putin’s regime and/or help Ukraine, or at the very least advance a single argument that isn’t based on the difficulty of navigating bureaucracies.
If not even that, how about a statement condemning Putin’s invasion? Or is that too a bridge too far?
Either internet governance is meaningful and important in everyday life, and therefore its leaders and institutions must have a position on big events that affect the internet, or it is irrelevant and after decades we should admit that our governance structures cannot meet the moment and need to be reformed.
As for Andrew Sullivan’s statement as head of ISOC, it is a very good summary of the arguments against blocking .RU. Effectively, he is saying that the internet is and must remain apolitical and serve as a connecting force and not a divisive one.
That sounds good and right on the face of it, but if that’s the case, I have a few questions:
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin dismantling free and open internet within Russia?
- where is ISOC’s statement on Putin’s ongoing violent effort to dismantle the free and open internet in Ukraine?
Surely these actual, real, and effective actions to harm the internet deserve as much of a reaction than the hypothetical harm of a hypothetical action. I am struck by the tender concern that Russian citizens should have unfettered internet while Ukrainian users huddling in bomb shelters without internet access (or power, or food) are asked to cheer the principle of universal access.
My view remains that neutrality in the face of mass murder is not neutral. These are extraordinary times, yet neither ICANN nor ISOC nor indeed any internet governance institution that I’m aware of — and I would be glad to stand corrected — can muster the courage to forcefully condemn, in a stand-alone statement, Putin’s attempt not only to eradicate Ukrainians’ free access to the internet but all the rest of their human rights as well.
As a group, internet governance experts have an opportunity to raise their voice and demonstrate that a murderous invading regime cannot be normalized by continuing business as usual.
So far, I have heard nothing but crickets.
On Mar 13, 2022, at 07:11, Javier Rua via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
-Thanks for link @Holly.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:07 AM, Holly Raiche via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Folks
Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken
Holly
https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/ why-the-world-must-resist-calls-to-undermine-the-internet/
On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge.
The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases.
If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others.
And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root.
This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying.
Cheers, Roberto
On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer
Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>:
The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet.
Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality.
For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA
Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https:// www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/ privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https:// www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy /policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/ privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- -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*
My grandparents came from Tarnopol (Tarnopil) and Lvov (Lviv), so I'm perhaps a bit more inflamed by current events than are many. (And I recognize that the injustices being inflicted on Ukraine are just one of a number of such injustices that have occurred or are occurring in other regions around the world.) On 3/13/22 4:44 PM, Barry Shein via At-Large wrote:
Technically yes, ICANN has "the passwords" to pull .ru etc from the root servers. But do they have the authority? And if not who has the authority?
I agree with the thrust of your note, but let me extend and clarify: ICANN's board does have the legal authority (with or without consent from the various stakeholder groups) to act, to pull .ru. That authority and power is not constrained by any applicable California or US Federal law (apart from criminal laws and various civil laws about misrepresentations and corporate accounting and the like, none of which seem applicable here. And with regard to those civil laws it is unclear who, if anyone, would have legal standing to object to ICANN's actions.) ICANN is a California corporation and has US Federal tax exemptions. That's it. ICANN can not claim unique immunity or exemption or some imaginary status based on non-existent international agreements, laws, or conventions. There are limits on ICANN's powers based on contracts into which ICANN has entered. But contractual rights and duties are not hewn into stone by a divine hand; they are merely private promises that may be kept - or not. It has been said in law opinions and journals for more than a century, a contract is really just a document that establishes how much you are going to pay for not doing what you promise. There's no morality attached, only costs. Thor's hammer will not land on ICANN should it decide to redelegate .ru. But .ru's lawyer and accountant may show up in a California or Federal court to ask payment of damages (and if they have a really strong case, may ask for an injunction.) The big, indeed the huge, question before us is WHAT to do? That's hard. That's really hard. There's no correct answer other than that silence (or near silence) is easily taken as tantamount to acceptance of the status quo or even support for it. On my part, I've suggested that .ru be re-delegated to an operator who will reduce TTLs on responses and add delay to the responses so that .ru remains usable and operational, but sluggish and annoying. (Yes, caching will do its magic, but reducing TTL reduces the strength of that magic.) The contents of .ru may be unavailable, in which case the new operator will have to do background fetches from the old .ru servers in order to backfill its zone file. That will increase the response delay, but that's the goal. I figure that even this kind of back-filling form .ru could be coded and deployed in a few days. (Probably very long days - the kind of multi-24 hour long, pizza-beer-and-coffee days we used to have at the TCP/IP Bakeoffs and when setting up the Interop show networks.) --karl--
Another question is what about all the registries, over 200, which IANA administers? Should allocations to Russia be pulled, even re-allocated? They range from MAC address prefixes for your ethernet and wi-fi chips to unique battery IDs used by your devices to verify the correct battery has been plugged in and to locate software for it, and etc etc. etc. Much of it is really boring stuff to most people but without it manufacturing and marketing of these components is basically impossible. And I'll ask yet again: Under what conditions should any such sanctions be reversed? -- -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*
Indeed Holly . For me Russian users of internet as well as Ukraineans users deserve to be connected- not all Russians are in favor of this war. As many of us saw,in each of our own country, lots of absurd and cruel things done to other countries some time by our own governments and did not agree, but had no power to make anything but use the internet to complain, if the government in question was not the one to persecute and kill those who dare to write against it, but even so, many of us used the internet to do so!! Both sides have the right to use this weapon in favor of peace. We are also seeing lots of hackers ( we have condemn they for their cybercrimes …) doing a good service using their capacity helping refugees and others in this war.. so, there are always several ways to use your knowledge for the benefit of world peace, without damage one side.. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Reply-To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Date: Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 02:08 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Ukraine, .RU, and internet governance Folks Please read the statement from the ISOC CEO - a very well argued statement about why cutting off .ru is not the answer, regardless of how much we all deplored the actions Russia has taken Holly https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist-calls... On Mar 12, 2022, at 7:59 PM, Roberto Gaetano via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: Unfortunately, it is not an international law issue, otherwise it would be solved without any responsibility by ICANN - just follow the order of the judge. The problem lies elsewhere, and is whether ICANN is or not an independent authority that can be trusted for following basic principles and apply them evenly in all cases. If ICANN decides to remove .ru from the root, based on a request by Ukraine (who, by the way, is no longer insisting in asking this, maybe because they have understood the unintended consequences) I don’t see how it could resist the request of removing the ccTLDs of what the US consider “rogue” countries, like Iran, Cuba, and others. And this besides all what has been said at length in this and other lists, like that it will not make .ru disappear, just invite operators to have their own copy of the root. This said, there are other actions that ICANN can take, but after having decided whether it will keep its reputation of being a reliable steward for the Internet infrastructure in the global interest or indulge in actions that, while not achieving any practical result, will be emotionally satisfying. Cheers, Roberto On 12.03.2022, at 04:55, SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote: It is an international law issue and the main text for conflicts and sovereignty is the UN Charta and its practice. In law, using the right text is decisive. Erich Schweighofer Am 12.03.2022 04:36 schrieb Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>: The mealy-mouthed opposition to Ukraine’s request to block .RU has exercised me so much that I called up Keith Teare to complain. Keith is a one-time candidate for ICANN CEO, a former board member of Minds + Machines, founder of Real Names and other companies, and a very smart guy with a good grasp of history and the internet. Keith doesn’t really agree with my position, so he suggested that we record a conversation and talk it out. To me, it turned out well (pardon my video quality. For those who’d like to hear a thorough discussion of the issue, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZd6rtDHsA Summary — all the reasons put forward as to why ICANN can’t do anything — we go through them all — are bullshit. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (23)
-
Alan Levin -
Amrita Choudhury -
Andrey Kolesnikov -
Antony Van Couvering -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Evan Leibovitch -
Hank Nussbacher -
Holly Raiche -
Javier Rua -
John More -
Jorma Mellin -
Judith Hellerstein -
Karl Auerbach -
Matthias M. Hudobnik -
Maureen Hilyard -
Natalia Filina -
Oksana Prykhodko -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
SCHWEIGHOFER Erich Prof. Dr. Dr.. -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Vanda Scartezini -
Wolfgang Kleinwächter