The statement could be as simple as "it is a bad thing", but this is a teaching moment. Authoritarians with state power have choice of mechanism: o the 2005 loss of public access to the net in Nepal involved making the fiber dark, o the 2005 loss of public access to the net in 2005, and 2007 in Burma involved capacity restriction, o the loss of public access to targeted content in the 2008 Pakistan Telecom attempt to restrict access to Youtube involved prefix (availability) announcement, o the April "hijacking" of 15% of global traffic by China Telecom involved prefix (availability) announcement, and o the current loss of public access to the net in Egypt involved prefix withdrawal (non-availability) announcement. Something along the lines of "... attacks on the integrity of the global routing table, attacks on the confidentiality of data on regional links ... are contrary to the public interest". Eric On 1/29/11 8:32 PM, gbruen@knujon.com wrote:

Agreed, great email

-------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 4:30 PM To: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: The Internet Society on Egypt’s Internet shutdown

...

via Dmitry Burkov.

We are following the current events in Egypt with concern as it appears that all incoming and outgoing Internet traffic has been disrupted. The Internet Society believes that the Internet is a global medium that fundamentally supports opportunity, empowerment, knowledge, growth, and freedom and that these values should never be taken away from individuals.

The Internet Society considers this recent action by the Egyptian government to block Internet traffic to be an inappropriate response to a political crisis. It is a very serious decision for a government to block all Internet access in its country, and a serious intrusion into its citizens’ basic rights to communicate. If the blockage continues, it will have a very detrimental impact on Egypt’s economy and society. Ultimately, the Egyptian people and nation are the ones that will suffer, while the rest of the world will be worse off with the loss of Egyptian voices on the net.

However we are most concerned about the safety and security of the Egyptian people. Alongside the rest of the world, we share the hope for a positive and lasting solution to the problems that have risen to the surface there.

In the longer term, we are sure that the world will learn a lesson from this very unfortunate example, and come to understand that cutting off a nation’s access to the Internet only serves to fuel dissent and does not address the underlying causes of dissatisfaction.

Text Ends.

This is something that matters.

The government of Nepal shut down network access in 2005. The government of Burma significantly reduced network access in 2005, and again in 2007.

I attended the November 2008 ICANN meeting in Cairo, as did some other participants in NARALO.

About 25 million people live in Cairo alone. When we were there two years ago a plurality, if not a majority of people I observed in domestic class hotels and malls had cell phones. WiFi hot spots were available all around the ICANN venue area, and more importantly, in central Cairo, the area that is shown on CNN and Al Jazeera today.

Internet access is a big part of Egyptian urban society.

As my friend Barry Shein, who also attended the Cairo meeting, writes: "I was curious about [Press Secretary Robert Gibb's characterization of the demonstrators as having middle class aspirations] having wandered around Cairo. The protesters looked to me like middle-class Egyptians as opposed to galabeah (sp?) wearing working class."

I suggest that the NARALO leadership draft a statement on the public interest value of public network access, free of interruption, and also free of deep packet inspection, by governments.

Eric

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

Hi, I always recommend reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm 19.2 Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. This is a binding instrument of International Law, derivative of the UDHR, which has been signed/ratified by most countries. a. On 30 Jan 2011, at 13:25, Marc Rotenberg wrote:

A statement is appropriate. It would be good also if we could reference relevant international human rights norms, such as Article 12 (privacy) and Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Almost all countries have expressed support for these principles. They are also universal values.

it is not so much the attack on the Internet that should concern us; it is the attack on the freedoms enabled by the Internet.

Marc.

On Jan 30, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

...

The statement could be as simple as "it is a bad thing", but this is a teaching moment.

Authoritarians with state power have choice of mechanism:

o the 2005 loss of public access to the net in Nepal involved making the fiber dark, o the 2005 loss of public access to the net in 2005, and 2007 in Burma involved capacity restriction, o the loss of public access to targeted content in the 2008 Pakistan Telecom attempt to restrict access to Youtube involved prefix (availability) announcement, o the April "hijacking" of 15% of global traffic by China Telecom involved prefix (availability) announcement, and o the current loss of public access to the net in Egypt involved prefix withdrawal (non-availability) announcement.

Something along the lines of "... attacks on the integrity of the global routing table, attacks on the confidentiality of data on regional links ... are contrary to the public interest".

Eric

On 1/29/11 8:32 PM, gbruen@knujon.com wrote:

...

Agreed, great email

-------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 4:30 PM To: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: The Internet Society on Egypt’s Internet shutdown

...

via Dmitry Burkov.

We are following the current events in Egypt with concern as it appears that all incoming and outgoing Internet traffic has been disrupted. The Internet Society believes that the Internet is a global medium that fundamentally supports opportunity, empowerment, knowledge, growth, and freedom and that these values should never be taken away from individuals.

The Internet Society considers this recent action by the Egyptian government to block Internet traffic to be an inappropriate response to a political crisis. It is a very serious decision for a government to block all Internet access in its country, and a serious intrusion into its citizens’ basic rights to communicate. If the blockage continues, it will have a very detrimental impact on Egypt’s economy and society. Ultimately, the Egyptian people and nation are the ones that will suffer, while the rest of the world will be worse off with the loss of Egyptian voices on the net.

However we are most concerned about the safety and security of the Egyptian people. Alongside the rest of the world, we share the hope for a positive and lasting solution to the problems that have risen to the surface there.

In the longer term, we are sure that the world will learn a lesson from this very unfortunate example, and come to understand that cutting off a nation’s access to the Internet only serves to fuel dissent and does not address the underlying causes of dissatisfaction.

Text Ends.

This is something that matters.

The government of Nepal shut down network access in 2005. The government of Burma significantly reduced network access in 2005, and again in 2007.

I attended the November 2008 ICANN meeting in Cairo, as did some other participants in NARALO.

About 25 million people live in Cairo alone. When we were there two years ago a plurality, if not a majority of people I observed in domestic class hotels and malls had cell phones. WiFi hot spots were available all around the ICANN venue area, and more importantly, in central Cairo, the area that is shown on CNN and Al Jazeera today.

Internet access is a big part of Egyptian urban society.

As my friend Barry Shein, who also attended the Cairo meeting, writes: "I was curious about [Press Secretary Robert Gibb's characterization of the demonstrators as having middle class aspirations] having wandered around Cairo. The protesters looked to me like middle-class Egyptians as opposed to galabeah (sp?) wearing working class."

I suggest that the NARALO leadership draft a statement on the public interest value of public network access, free of interruption, and also free of deep packet inspection, by governments.

Eric

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

ICANN != civil society, and it's only a small piece of the puzzle known as "Internet Governance". Our role here in At-Large is fairly specific, and limited to advising ICANN on matters regarding its own relatively constrained authority. Is there something SPECIFIC that we can say to the ICANN Board regarding a chance to its policies or practices that will improve or assure freedom of access? Is there anything ICANN, its policies or business relations could possibly have done to prevent (or lessen the impact of) government-decreed denial of service? If so, we should -- we must -- articulate such changes clearly and forcefully. But it is pointless to advocate (in this particular forum) change that ICANN is unable to affect.It's hypocritical for us to spend our energy to keep ICANN confined to its own areas of authority and competency, then produce out-of-scope pronouncements (that might make the authors feel good but will be otherwise ignored). - Evan

Well, as the newcomer, I will continue to ask the dumb questions, but this is what the ICANN bylaws say as to the creation of ALAC: "The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users." This statement suggests that ALAC has the freedom to say what ICANN should or should not do when the interests of individual Internet users are concerned. And the decision of a national government to limit the ability of individuals to access the Internet would seem to be high on the list. There are, to be sure, a broad range of statements that can be made, but a good starting point is to ask if ALAC has issued statements on similar developments in the past. It might also be a good opportunity to collaborate with NCUC. Marc. On Jan 30, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

ICANN != civil society, and it's only a small piece of the puzzle known as "Internet Governance".

Our role here in At-Large is fairly specific, and limited to advising ICANN on matters regarding its own relatively constrained authority.

Is there something SPECIFIC that we can say to the ICANN Board regarding a chance to its policies or practices that will improve or assure freedom of access? Is there anything ICANN, its policies or business relations could possibly have done to prevent (or lessen the impact of) government-decreed denial of service?

If so, we should -- we must -- articulate such changes clearly and forcefully. But it is pointless to advocate (in this particular forum) change that ICANN is unable to affect.It's hypocritical for us to spend our energy to keep ICANN confined to its own areas of authority and competency, then produce out-of-scope pronouncements (that might make the authors feel good but will be otherwise ignored).

- Evan

I appreciate your comments. You are a lot more familiar with the process and the institutions than I am. But it seems odd to me that an entity charged with looking out for the interests of Internet users (ALAC) would be silent when there is a development that dramatically affects the interests of Internet users. And surely part of our responsibility would be determine what it is that ICANN should do in response. Marc. On Jan 30, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

On 30 January 2011 15:26, Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org> wrote:

"The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users."

This statement suggests that ALAC has the freedom to say what ICANN should or should not do when the interests of individual Internet users are concerned.

Absolutely right. But I've added appropriate emphasis to what you said. ICANN is itself limited to specific components of Internet governance -- notably, names and numbers (the last two letters of the ICANN acronym).

Context matters.

And the decision of a national government to limit the ability of individuals to access the Internet would seem to be high on the list.

Be specific, then. What should ICANN do -- within the scope of things it is able to do?

I'm less of a newcomer than you and I can't honestly think of anything that falls within ICANN's mandate that it is able to do in this situation. Maybe others have better ideas than I in this realm, but it is critical not to deal in generalities.

Also, simply asking ICANN to "issue a statement" is not IMO a useful option. Given its heavy industry-driven agenda, if ICANN were prone to issuing political statements they would more often than not (IMO) be against the user best interest. So I prefer to have ICANN stay out of political statements entirely.

Thus, I am opposed to making any statement that is not tied to an explicit request for specific change to ICANN policy, operation or enforcement.

There are, to be sure, a broad range of statements that can be made, but a good starting point is to ask if ALAC has issued statements on similar developments in the past.

In my three years of involvement with ICANN the answer to that would be "no".

It might also be a good opportunity to collaborate with NCUC.

Perhaps. Some interface with ISOC (quite a few ISOC chapters are ALSs) might also be useful. But statements coming from ISOC and NCUC members organisations will be both more useful -- and more appropriate -- than those coming from ICANN itself.

- Evan

On 30 January 2011 16:48, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:

Hi,

...

From all the report I have seen, the cut was not related to the DNS. So names, and hence the GNSO/NCUC would seem to have little to say.

However, while routing is not specifically in ICANN's scope, making portions of the Internet address space unreachable by withdrawing routes, might just be within its scope, i.e IP addresses and AS numbers. This would certainly seem to be related to core value:

1. Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.

Egyptian actions went against ICANN's core value number 1.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Marc, it appears Avri may have directly addressed your issue, and overcome at least part of my objection. Indeed, At-Large has the ability to comment on all aspects of ICANN, while the GNSO is limited to just certain bits of it. Certainly the Egyptian act contravened ICANN's own Core Value #1. So it is within scope of things ICANN oversees. At issue, then, is what ICANN can and should realistically to about this. I still have a personal issue with issuing statements devoid of action, and ICANN already has complex and IMO fragile relationships with both governments and CC domain registries. Most certainly ICANN was silent during similar Internet blockage activity in Iran less than two years ago. ICANN has near-zero diplomatic credibility but very strong technical credibility (which is IMO the way it *should* be). So its ability to persuade using principled statements is very very low. But is there anything it can do a a technical level? In this realm the issues get far above my head very quickly, but amongst the possible topics that might surround this: - better support for emergency routing using alternative Internet communications techniques, over both high-tech (ie, satellite) and low-tech (ie, telephone or Internet-over-ham-radio) approaches to circumvent blocking mechanisms - Emergency planning to enable quick reaction in such circumstances and provide backup Internet access using the above-mentioned (and other) technologies. - more redundancy routing to impede blocking attempts I'm at a loss thinking of others, but there are lots of smart people in this group who have been thinking about this longer and harder than I. - Evan

I agree that now we at least have a thread that we can pursue. I support anything that can be done to explore technical rather than political interventions. Gareth On 2011-01-30, at 2:24 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

On 30 January 2011 16:48, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:

...

Hi,

...

From all the report I have seen, the cut was not related to the DNS. So names, and hence the GNSO/NCUC would seem to have little to say.

However, while routing is not specifically in ICANN's scope, making portions of the Internet address space unreachable by withdrawing routes, might just be within its scope, i.e IP addresses and AS numbers. This would certainly seem to be related to core value:

1. Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.

Egyptian actions went against ICANN's core value number 1.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Marc, it appears Avri may have directly addressed your issue, and overcome at least part of my objection.

Indeed, At-Large has the ability to comment on all aspects of ICANN, while the GNSO is limited to just certain bits of it. Certainly the Egyptian act contravened ICANN's own Core Value #1. So it is within scope of things ICANN oversees.

At issue, then, is what ICANN can and should realistically to about this. I still have a personal issue with issuing statements devoid of action, and ICANN already has complex and IMO fragile relationships with both governments and CC domain registries. Most certainly ICANN was silent during similar Internet blockage activity in Iran less than two years ago.

ICANN has near-zero diplomatic credibility but very strong technical credibility (which is IMO the way it *should* be). So its ability to persuade using principled statements is very very low. But is there anything it can do a a technical level?

In this realm the issues get far above my head very quickly, but amongst the possible topics that might surround this:

- better support for emergency routing using alternative Internet communications techniques, over both high-tech (ie, satellite) and low-tech (ie, telephone or Internet-over-ham-radio) approaches to circumvent blocking mechanisms - Emergency planning to enable quick reaction in such circumstances and provide backup Internet access using the above-mentioned (and other) technologies. - more redundancy routing to impede blocking attempts

I'm at a loss thinking of others, but there are lots of smart people in this group who have been thinking about this longer and harder than I.

- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

Does anyone know what our counterparts in AFRALO are saying? As I said in another forum when a government takes these extraordinary steps it is an admission they have lost control. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 6:10 PM To: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: The Internet Society on Egypt’s Internet shutdown

On 1/30/11 4:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

...

From all the report I have seen, the cut was not related to the DNS. So names, and hence the GNSO/NCUC would seem to have little to say.

The prefix withdrawal timeline is available here: http://stat.ripe.net/egypt/

Cowie has a nice write up here: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml

Discussed extensively on NANOG and MENOG, though more on NANOG.

Only Noor's prefixes remain announced. Earlier today I was looking at the Egyptian Stock Exchange (which lost more than 10% today), for which only one of its three nameservers are on non-withdrawn prefixes.

Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

Hi, I did not say it was a technical problem. Of course I understand that routing include establishing and withdrawing routes all the time, I figure most people know this, it is after al what routing protocols do. But thank you for the tutelage. It is a policy problem related to ICANN areas of responsibility. a. On 30 Jan 2011, at 19:25, John R. Levine wrote:

...

However, while routing is not specifically in ICANN's scope, making portions of the Internet address space unreachable by withdrawing routes, might just be within its scope, i.e IP addresses and AS numbers. This would certainly seem to be related to core value:

Networks withdraw routes and make address space unreachable all the time, many times a day. Usually it's for innocuous technical reasons. ICANN hands out the ASNs and IP space, but has nothing to do with the maintenance of the route table, other than the single entry for ICANN itself.

I'm with Evan, here. This is not a technical problem. For all we know, the Egyptian government disconnected the networks with an axe, and the routes are just going away as a side effect.

Something that is a technical problem is that crooks have hijacked some of the now idle IP address space and are announcing it, pretending to be Egyptian networks. There is technology to sign route announcements, which would deter that, but it's not widely deployed.

Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

Hi, I always have a problem with the expectations of people who me tell me what I surely can't expect. True, there is no way to tell governments what they can and can't do in any circumstance, let alone routing. But certainly I think ICANN can describe what sorts of behavior is and is not appropriate and certainly I think that allocation policy can look at taking such behaviors into account. I am not sure what else I expect ICANN could do, but now that you mention it, it certainly seems worth investigating. a. On 30 Jan 2011, at 22:17, John R. Levine wrote:

...

It is a policy problem related to ICANN areas of responsibility.

Surely you don't expect ICANN to promulgate rules that tell governments what they can route?

Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

Hi, Well then we disagree. For the more we discuss it, the more convinced I become that ICANN should make a statement declaring, at the very least, this sort of behavior to be incompatible with the well being of the Internet and contrary to international covenants related to freedom of information. If ICANN is going to have credibility in its role as a steward of the Internet, it must not let this pass uncommented. If it does, then it will share responsibility for all future such action by virtue of its silence. John, I thank you for helping me see the issue more clearly. a. On 30 Jan 2011, at 23:30, John R. Levine wrote:

...

But certainly I think ICANN can describe what sorts of behavior is and is not appropriate and certainly I think that allocation policy can look at taking such behaviors into account.

I am unalterably opposed to any proposal in which ICANN would purport to tell any government what to do. That just makes us look silly.

It's not like the Egyptian government is unaware of what they've done, after all.

Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

+1 On 1/31/2011 12:32 AM, Gareth Shearman wrote:

+ 1

Gareth

On 2011-01-30, at 8:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

...

Hi,

Well then we disagree.

For the more we discuss it, the more convinced I become that ICANN should make a statement declaring, at the very least, this sort of behavior to be incompatible with the well being of the Internet and contrary to international covenants related to freedom of information.

If ICANN is going to have credibility in its role as a steward of the Internet, it must not let this pass uncommented. If it does, then it will share responsibility for all future such action by virtue of its silence.

John, I thank you for helping me see the issue more clearly.

a.

On 30 Jan 2011, at 23:30, John R. Levine wrote:

...

...

But certainly I think ICANN can describe what sorts of behavior is and is not appropriate and certainly I think that allocation policy can look at taking such behaviors into account. I am unalterably opposed to any proposal in which ICANN would purport to tell any government what to do. That just makes us look silly.

It's not like the Egyptian government is unaware of what they've done, after all.

Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

I've been following this discussion over the last couple of days with interest .. On 31 Jan 2011, at 12:48, Marc Rotenberg wrote:

What of a statement that had these elements:

- Note recent developments in Egypt

- Acknowledge that the problem is not unique to Egypt and could arise elsewhere in the future

- Express concern on behalf of Internet users

- Recognize ICANN's limited authority on policy matters

- But call attention to Core Value 1

"1. Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet"

- Note that this value also reflects fundamental norms for freedom of expression widely recognized around the world

Widely - maybe, but not globally ..

- Recommend that ICANN (options)

(1) Communicate to Egypt concern regarding the specific actions recently taken to limit Internet access

And Egypt's response, if any, will probably be how it is a "domestic matter" and none of ICANN's concern ..

(2) Remind all governments (?= GAC) of their obligations to uphold Core Value 1

Huh? How can you "oblige" a government to do that, or anything else for that matter?

(3) Begin the development of technical methods to prevent such "outages" in the future

I don't see how you can really prevent something like this is the regime really wants to cut themselves off. Sorry, but I just don't see how you're going to help anyone with this I'd also wonder if it's really ICANN's place to be making these kind of calls .. ISOC maybe .. Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

Continuing ...

- Recognize ICANN's limited authority on policy matters

Much as I personally like Manal Ismail it is difficult to imagine her being an effective spokesperson for the GAC, at Brussels, San Francisco or Amman. As Andrew McLaughlin pointed out in his open letter to Dr. Tarek Kamel, he too faces a limited range of choices as an accepted figure of merit or authority. It may be prudent for ICANN to forgo the assistance of the representatives of the Egyptian government at present, and for some time to come. Of course, it may also be prudent for Egypt to find that its representatives are otherwise engaged and need not be the focus of public comment critical of administrative induced network failure. Next, is the intentional failure of the .eg registry consistent with the purposes and positions of record of the ccNSO? I have a hard time imagining Chris Despain making the case that the principle of subsidiarity means that ccTLDs can be turned on and off at the whim of national governments. Applications for new gTLDs that propose to site, primarily or secondarily, in Egypt, have already been harmed by the need to find alternate primary or secondary siting, at some additional cost or complexity. When the interests of the registrants, rather than the interests of the registries, is considered, it may be prudent to reject all new gTLD applications which propose to site within the territorial jurisdiction of Egypt, or use any four of the five principle network operators subject to administrative induced failure on January 22nd. In general, I find the "ICANN is powerless" claim to be non persuasive. Eric

I agree, Evan, we shouldn't go it alone. I like Avri's suggestion of formally alerting ALAC to our concerns and asking them to consider the possibility of making a statement. Gareth On 2011-01-31, at 7:35 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

For what it's worth...

None of the other At-Large regions appears to be raising this issue. AFRALO itself is notably silent, and it has in the past been quite vocal on issues of concern to it.

The ICANN Board has apparently discussed the issue but so far chosen not to act.

This means that getting support for a global At-Large statement -- let alone from ICANN itself -- is nearly impossible. This means that pressing on -- alone as a region -- will have the visible effect of Americans lecturing the world on freedom(*). I suggest that would be unwelcome optics and inappropriate for ICANN, and have few positive effects except making the authors feel good.

As has been stated, the Egyptian government knows exactly what it's doing and the residual harm that is coming from its actions (state control or shutdown of communications media during times of crisis is hardly a new phenomenon). It's notable that one of the only links left open (clearly deliberately so) is a redundancy that allows the Stock Exchange to be accessible. Based on casual conversations I've had, though, I wonder if the casual Internet end-user around the world cares more about the temporary Internet shutdown than about the thousands of injuries and deaths on the streets of Cairo.

I am more inclined to want to follow up on Marc's suggestion that perhaps the events in Egypt may serve as a catalyst for At-Large research into what role ICANN may play to reduce or alleviate such problems in the future. What happened here, on this scale, is a first. Perhaps there are things ICANN can do to reduce the harm of future instances. I don't know, but it's worth finding out.

But as the discussion has progressed I am still yet to be persuaded that ICANN has any role making a political statement on the current situation. Given that ICANN's relationship with the world's governments is already precarious at this time<http://kierenmccarthy.com/2011/01/27/so-what-does-that-weird-gac-wording-act...>, it's highly unlikely that ICANN will take any action that is seen to be lecturing sovereign states. In this light, and the refusal of other At-Large regions to get similarly involved, I am solidly against any NARALO attempt to go it alone.

- Evan

(*) Given the public posturing by some Amercian politicians about killing Julian Assange<http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/mike-huckabee-calls-for-execution-of-julian-assange/>and displaying envy for what Egypt has done<http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/28/egypt-just-turned-of.html>, the country's moral reputation on Internet freedom may not be as solid as some think ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

I ask interested folks here to read these two items: The Internet Society Q&A and position statement http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3100 A blog entry from ICANN's CEO http://blog.icann.org/2011/01/status-report-on-the-dns-in-egypt/ I have some ideas on possible action based on these, but I'd like to sleep on it first. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

I think that there is a notable difference in ICANN's authority or influence on gTLDs vs. ccTLDs. This discussion seems to be split between ICANN's technical arena and the political arena. As much as I do not like anyone being shutoff from the net or crushed by dictators, the two arenas are separate. I urge a little caution in writing statements that are influened by current politics or social events. ICANN could be encouraged to to make sure that all countries are treated in a particular (good) way, but the ccTLDs are pretty much are subject to the whims of governments, as evidenced by the sale of some ccTLDs to private individuals. It is not helpful, in my opinion, to make statements that tell someone to do something they are unable to do. Unwilling is another matter. --bob On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:36:54 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [windows-1252] Fwd: The Internet Society on Egypt�s Internet shutdown

Continuing ...

...

- Recognize ICANN's limited authority on policy matters

Much as I personally like Manal Ismail it is difficult to imagine her being an effective spokesperson for the GAC, at Brussels, San Francisco or Amman.

As Andrew McLaughlin pointed out in his open letter to Dr. Tarek Kamel, he too faces a limited range of choices as an accepted figure of merit or authority.

It may be prudent for ICANN to forgo the assistance of the representatives of the Egyptian government at present, and for some time to come. Of course, it may also be prudent for Egypt to find that its representatives are otherwise engaged and need not be the focus of public comment critical of administrative induced network failure.

Next, is the intentional failure of the .eg registry consistent with the purposes and positions of record of the ccNSO? I have a hard time imagining Chris Despain making the case that the principle of subsidiarity means that ccTLDs can be turned on and off at the whim of national governments.

Applications for new gTLDs that propose to site, primarily or secondarily, in Egypt, have already been harmed by the need to find alternate primary or secondary siting, at some additional cost or complexity. When the interests of the registrants, rather than the interests of the registries, is considered, it may be prudent to reject all new gTLD applications which propose to site within the territorial jurisdiction of Egypt, or use any four of the five principle network operators subject to administrative induced failure on January 22nd.

In general, I find the "ICANN is powerless" claim to be non persuasive.

Eric

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

...

That just makes us look silly.

there are so many opportunities for looking silly.

Indeed, but I was hoping we might break with tradition. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

Which of the following are resources technically coordinated by, or rely upon resources technically coordinated by ICANN? o Autonomous System Numbers o Address prefixs o Network Layer Reachability Information o Global Routing Table o Prefix announcement and withdrawal Eric