April 2017 - Ws2-jurisdiction

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FW: No more IP addresses for countries that shut down internet access
by Seun Ojedeji April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Hi, Speaking as a participant in this ccwg and NOT as the hat I wear within AFRINIC, I will highly recommend that people pay attention to the clarification comments of the CEO of AFRINIC where this article was published: https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2017/04/12/no_ip_ addresses_for_countries/ Anyone who wants to participate in the discussion can subscribe on the AFRINIC rpd list and you may also go through the following thread to have more background knowledge: It all started from here: https://lists.afrinic.net/ pipermail/rpd/2017/006503.html Regards On Apr 25, 2017 20:35, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Colleagues > > > > The below article may be of interest, especially as it bears on the > question of when /how internet freedom might be impinged upon. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)gmail.com > > M: +1 (202) 329 9650 <+1%20202-329-9650> > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <+1%20202-738-1739> > > CR: +506 7008 3964 <+506%207008%203964> > > My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 > 097CA066684 > > > > *No more IP addresses for countries that shut down internet access* > > > > Afrinic mulls punitive policy for errant governments > > > > 12 Apr 2017 at 19:54, Kieren McCarthy > > > > Governments that cut off internet access to their citizens could find > themselves refused new IP addresses under a proposal put through one of the > five global IP allocation organizations. > > > > The suggested clampdown will be considered at the next meeting of internet > registry Afrinic in Kenya in June: Afrinic is in charge of managing and > allocating IP address blocks across Africa. > > > > Under the proposal, a new section would be added to Afrinic's official > rules that would allow the organization to refuse to hand over any new IP > address to a country for 12 months if it is found to have ordered an > internet shutdown. > > > > The ban would cover all government-owned entities and others that have a > "direct provable relationship with said government." It would also cover > any transfer of address space to those entities from others. > > > > That withdrawal of services would escalate if the country continued to > pull the plug on internet access. Under the proposal: "In the event of a > government performing three or more such shutdowns in a period of 10 years > – all resources to the aforementioned entities shall be revoked and no > allocations to said entities shall occur for a period of 5 years." > > > > The proposal was sparked by a recent increase in the number of complete > nationwide shutdowns of internet service – something that has been a cause > of increasing concern and ire within the internet infrastructure community. > > > > The start > > > > The trend started during the Egyptian revolution back in 2011 when > authorities killed the entire's country web access prior to a big protest > march. Employees of ISPs and mobile phone companies reported troops turning > up at their homes and pointing guns at their families in order to enforce > the shutdown. > > > > Until then, many governments had assumed it was largely impossible to turn > off internet access to their entire nation. Soon after, government > departments educated themselves about AS numbers and internet routing and > started using their power to set up systems that would allow them to order > the shutdown of all networks from a central point. > > > > While some countries only used this ability in the more dire circumstances > – riots or terrorist attacks – shutdowns quickly started being used > preemptively and for political reasons. > > > > Bangladesh switched off its entire country's net connectivity prior to the > sentencing of former government leaders for war crimes. Then Iraq started > shutting down the entire country for several hours at a time in order to > prevent exam cheating. > > > > While these were enormously frustrating, the shutdown typically lasted > only a few hours. But then Cameroon decided to cut off the internet for > weeks – and targeted specific communities. The country's southwest and > northwest provinces were taken offline following violent protests: a > decision that had a hugely damaging impact on its "Silicon Mountain" > startup zone, and also took down its banks and ATMs. > > > > In India, the number and frequency of internet shutdowns has sparked a new > protest movement and website that tracks them. > > > > The situation has grown so dire that the United Nations got involved and > officially condemned the practice at a meeting of the Human Rights Council > back in July. Despite opposition from a number of countries – including > China, Russia, India and Kenya – a resolution passed forbidding mass web > blockades. > > > > Plan > > > > The reality, however, is that there is nothing to prevent governments from > shutting down the internet and very little anyone can do in the face of a > determined push from the authorities. > > > > But now the techies are fighting back. The Afrinic proposal has been put > forward by the CTO and the Head of IP strategy for Liquid > Telecommunications – a large pan-African ISP – as well as the CEO of > Kenya's main ISP Association. As such it is a proposal that many are taking > seriously. > > > > "While the authors of this policy acknowledge that what is proposed is > draconian in nature, we feel that the time has come for action to be taken, > rather than just bland statements that have shown to have little or no > effect," they wrote, noting that "over the last few years we have seen more > and more governments shutting down the free and open access to the internet > in order to push political and other agendas." > > > > Whether governments like it or not, they are reliant on the provision of > IP address to expand their networks and digital economy, and Afrinic is the > only organization that can realistically provide them. If the policy does > get passed, it would almost certainly act as a strong deterrent for > government ministers to shutting down internet access. > > > > But there are a wealth of problems with the idea, not least of which would > be the determination of what represents an internet shutdown. The authors > put forward a suggested definition: > > > > An internet shutdown is deemed to have occurred when it can be proved that > there was an attempt, failed or successful, to restrict access to the > internet to a segment of the population irrespective of the provider or > access medium that they utilize. > > > > That wording is likely to be very heavily scrutinized. And it would > require someone or group to make a determination that it has happened – > which would likely become a politically charged decision. And none of that > considers the fact that national leaders are unlikely to accept punitive > terms being placed against them by a third party. > > > > In short, it is a huge political headache. But it may also be one that > only the internet community is capable to taking on and winning. The next > few months will see whether the 'net community in Africa is willing to take > on the challenge for the greater good. ® > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > >

4 3

FW: No more IP addresses for countries that shut down internet access
by Paul Rosenzweig April 25, 2017

April 25, 2017

Colleagues The below article may be of interest, especially as it bears on the question of when /how internet freedom might be impinged upon. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)gmail.com M: +1 (202) 329 9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 CR: +506 7008 3964 My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 No more IP addresses for countries that shut down internet access Afrinic mulls punitive policy for errant governments 12 Apr 2017 at 19:54, Kieren McCarthy Governments that cut off internet access to their citizens could find themselves refused new IP addresses under a proposal put through one of the five global IP allocation organizations. The suggested clampdown will be considered at the next meeting of internet registry Afrinic in Kenya in June: Afrinic is in charge of managing and allocating IP address blocks across Africa. Under the proposal, a new section would be added to Afrinic's official rules that would allow the organization to refuse to hand over any new IP address to a country for 12 months if it is found to have ordered an internet shutdown. The ban would cover all government-owned entities and others that have a "direct provable relationship with said government." It would also cover any transfer of address space to those entities from others. That withdrawal of services would escalate if the country continued to pull the plug on internet access. Under the proposal: "In the event of a government performing three or more such shutdowns in a period of 10 years – all resources to the aforementioned entities shall be revoked and no allocations to said entities shall occur for a period of 5 years." The proposal was sparked by a recent increase in the number of complete nationwide shutdowns of internet service – something that has been a cause of increasing concern and ire within the internet infrastructure community. The start The trend started during the Egyptian revolution back in 2011 when authorities killed the entire's country web access prior to a big protest march. Employees of ISPs and mobile phone companies reported troops turning up at their homes and pointing guns at their families in order to enforce the shutdown. Until then, many governments had assumed it was largely impossible to turn off internet access to their entire nation. Soon after, government departments educated themselves about AS numbers and internet routing and started using their power to set up systems that would allow them to order the shutdown of all networks from a central point. While some countries only used this ability in the more dire circumstances – riots or terrorist attacks – shutdowns quickly started being used preemptively and for political reasons. Bangladesh switched off its entire country's net connectivity prior to the sentencing of former government leaders for war crimes. Then Iraq started shutting down the entire country for several hours at a time in order to prevent exam cheating. While these were enormously frustrating, the shutdown typically lasted only a few hours. But then Cameroon decided to cut off the internet for weeks – and targeted specific communities. The country's southwest and northwest provinces were taken offline following violent protests: a decision that had a hugely damaging impact on its "Silicon Mountain" startup zone, and also took down its banks and ATMs. In India, the number and frequency of internet shutdowns has sparked a new protest movement and website that tracks them. The situation has grown so dire that the United Nations got involved and officially condemned the practice at a meeting of the Human Rights Council back in July. Despite opposition from a number of countries – including China, Russia, India and Kenya – a resolution passed forbidding mass web blockades. Plan The reality, however, is that there is nothing to prevent governments from shutting down the internet and very little anyone can do in the face of a determined push from the authorities. But now the techies are fighting back. The Afrinic proposal has been put forward by the CTO and the Head of IP strategy for Liquid Telecommunications – a large pan-African ISP – as well as the CEO of Kenya's main ISP Association. As such it is a proposal that many are taking seriously. "While the authors of this policy acknowledge that what is proposed is draconian in nature, we feel that the time has come for action to be taken, rather than just bland statements that have shown to have little or no effect," they wrote, noting that "over the last few years we have seen more and more governments shutting down the free and open access to the internet in order to push political and other agendas." Whether governments like it or not, they are reliant on the provision of IP address to expand their networks and digital economy, and Afrinic is the only organization that can realistically provide them. If the policy does get passed, it would almost certainly act as a strong deterrent for government ministers to shutting down internet access. But there are a wealth of problems with the idea, not least of which would be the determination of what represents an internet shutdown. The authors put forward a suggested definition: An internet shutdown is deemed to have occurred when it can be proved that there was an attempt, failed or successful, to restrict access to the internet to a segment of the population irrespective of the provider or access medium that they utilize. That wording is likely to be very heavily scrutinized. And it would require someone or group to make a determination that it has happened – which would likely become a politically charged decision. And none of that considers the fact that national leaders are unlikely to accept punitive terms being placed against them by a third party. In short, it is a huge political headache. But it may also be one that only the internet community is capable to taking on and winning. The next few months will see whether the 'net community in Africa is willing to take on the challenge for the greater good. ®

2 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 28 | 25 April 2017
by MSSI Secretariat April 25, 2017

April 25, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #28– 25 April 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/0c3RAw A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D2BD9E.9169D400] Action Items * GS – to circulate a doodle poll to schedule a call of the questionnaire evaluation group. * GS – to circulate form for Litigation analysis to list * GS – To complete analysis of his two cases. * GS – Will complete the question on choice of law and send to the legal committee. Raw Captioning Notes · Word Doc <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64081361/0425ICAN0500UTC.d…> (Note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call) · PDF <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64081361/0425ICAN0500UTC.p…> (Note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call)

1 0

Draft Follow-Up Question to ICANN Legal
by Greg Shatan April 25, 2017

April 25, 2017

All, Here is a draft of the question to ICANN Legal, along with their initial answer on the fact that the RA and RAA do not specify an applicable law. Your comments are appreciated. This will be referred to on the upcoming call. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com

1 0

Jurisdiction Subgroup Agenda for 24 April 2017 at 0500 UTC
by Greg Shatan April 25, 2017

April 25, 2017

All, I have attached the agenda for the upcoming meeting, along with copies of the Litigation chart and Work Plan circulated earlier today. I look forward to talking shortly. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com

1 0

Revised Draft Work Plan
by Greg Shatan April 24, 2017

April 24, 2017

All, The revised draft Work Plan is now posted as a Google Doc that everyone can comment on. Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1li2uDMNIfMmoXnCdLuAb4rsN6F9JFu7Mae1y0sF… A copy is also attached as a PDF. All comments are appreciated (but most appreciated if they are added to the Google Doc). Thanks! Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com

1 0

Update on Subgroup Review of ICANN Litigations
by Greg Shatan April 24, 2017

April 24, 2017

All: I have attached a PDF of the list of ICANN Litigations, showing progress to date. Progress is being tracked in the right hand column and also in a new table at the end of the document. As you will see, there are still 20 cases unclaimed, as well as 6 cases in process. As you will also see, only 4 cases were claimed in the last 4 weeks. We clearly need more volunteers to review and summarize cases if we want to finish this project. The list is available on Google Drive, where you can sign up for cases: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjR… *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-AcctWS2.Jurisdiction.Questionnaire] Responses to the Jurisdiction Questionnaire
by Bernard Turcotte April 24, 2017

April 24, 2017

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN_GAC <dpt_02(a)motc.gov.tw> Date: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 4:21 AM Subject: [CCWG-AcctWS2.Jurisdiction.Questionnaire] Responses to the Jurisdiction Questionnaire To: "ccwg-acctws2.jurisdiction.questionnaire" < ccwg-acctws2.jurisdiction.questionnaire(a)icann.org> Cc: dpt_02 <dpt_02(a)motc.gov.tw> Dear Sirs, On behalf of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Republic of China (Taiwan), I hereby send the responses to the CCWG-Accountability WS2 Issues Jurisdiction Questionnaire as below. Best regards, Mao-shong (Morris) Lin Taiwan GAC Representative Deputy Director of Dept. Posts and Telecommunications Ministry of Transportation and Communications Republic of China (Taiwan) QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction* in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive and/or negative effects. Response: No. 2. Has ICANN's jurisdiction* affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names you have been involved in? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive and/or negative effects. Response: Not yet. 3. Do you have copies of and/or links to any verifiable reports of experiences of other parties that would be responsive to the questions above? If the answer is yes, please provide these copies and/or links. Response: No. 4. a. Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue its Mission because of its jurisdiction?* If so, please provide documentation. Response: No. b. Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing its Mission? If so, please provide documentation. Response: No. ** 本信件可能包含交通部機密資料，非指定收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容 / This mail may contain MOTC confidential information. Please do not use or disclose it in any way and please delete it if you are not the intended recipient/ ** _______________________________________________ CCWG-AcctWS2.Jurisdiction.Questionnaire mailing list CCWG-AcctWS2.Jurisdiction.Questionnaire(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-acctws2. jurisdiction.questionnaire

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-AcctWS2.Jurisdiction.Questionnaire] Fw: Inputs from China Internet community on Jurisdiction Questions
by Bernard Turcotte April 21, 2017

April 21, 2017

Response to questionnaire. B. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: 刘越 <liuyue(a)caict.ac.cn> Date: Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM Subject: [CCWG-AcctWS2.Jurisdiction.Questionnaire] Fw: Inputs from China Internet community on Jurisdiction Questions To: ccwg-acctws2.jurisdiction.questionnaire(a)icann.org Dear Sir/Madam, I am a researcher from the Internet Governance Research Center,Chinese Academy of Information Communications and Technology. Our Center held a workshop on the Jurisdiction questions of the CCWG-Accountability WS2.The workshop is a part of ICANN 58 China Internet Community Readout Session. Please find the attached files. These are the transcripts of the workshop with Chinese and English versions as our inputs for your reference. Thank you! If you have any question, please contact me. Yours, Liu Yue -----原始邮件----- *发件人:*"刘越" <liuyue(a)caict.ac.cn> *发送时间:*2017-04-18 06:41:54 (星期二) *收件人:* ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org *抄送:* *主题:* Inputs from China Internet community on Jurisdiction Questions Dear Sir/Madam, I am a researcher from the Internet Governance Research Center,Chinese Academy of Information Communications and Technology. Our Center held a workshop on the Jurisdiction questions of the CCWG-Accountability WS2.The workshop is a part of ICANN 58 China Internet Community Readout Session. Please find the attached files. These are the transcripts of the workshop with Chinese and English versions as our inputs for your reference. Thank you! If you have any question, please contact me. Yours, Liu Yue _______________________________________________ CCWG-AcctWS2.Jurisdiction.Questionnaire mailing list CCWG-AcctWS2.Jurisdiction.Questionnaire(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-acctws2. jurisdiction.questionnaire

1 0

Upcoming Jurisdiction Calls
by Greg Shatan April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

All: For your convenience, here is the current schedule of upcoming calls: Tuesday, April 25: 0500 UTC (invite sent 22 March) Tuesday, May 2: 1300 UTC (invite sent 12 April) Tuesday, May 9: 1900 UTC (invite sent 12 April) Tuesday, May 16: 0500 UTC (invite sent 12 April) Tuesday, May 23: 1300 UTC (invite not yet sent) Tuesday, May 30: 1900 UTC (invite not yet sent) Please make sure the first four meetings are noted in your calendar, and be on the lookout for the invites for the last two meetings. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com

1 0