[NA-Discuss] Unrest continues to be met with Internet lockdown

[Beau Brendler]

Eric wrote:

> I see no point in revisiting the recent limited statements of ICANN or 
> ALAC, or their offered rationals, but I do see a point in attempting 
> to know what access models actually exist, and having data sufficient 
> to support predictive modeling of disruptive local policy on the 
> regional and global internet.

How can we put something like this together? This kind of information-gathering would be helpful to the user community and could also probably be used to get the attention of the press.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen at knujon.com>
>Sent: Feb 16, 2011 11:50 AM
>To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
>Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Unrest continues to be met with Internet lockdown
>
>Not proposing a re-write, just staying abreast
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Unrest continues to be met with Internet
>> lockdown
>> From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
>> Date: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:44 am
>> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> 
>> 
>> Garth,
>> 
>> Again, I never hope to be more than a minority of one, and while I 
>> read MENA IT news on NANOG, MENOG, Aljazeera (commercially censored in 
>> most North American broadcast/cable media markets) and through S/N 
>> feeds from or about contacts in West Asia and North Africa, I find it 
>> useful to distinguish what technical means are being deployed to 
>> effect some explicit or implicit state policy goal.
>> 
>> I* know that targeted communications degradation was attempted first, 
>> affecting S/N data flows, and when either that failed, due to the 
>> scale of the S/N participating nodes (thousands of SMS and IPv4 
>> capable devices sourcing audio and video capture data) or the policy 
>> goal required degradation of more instances of communications than 
>> just S/N, prefix withdrawals were announced by all access and transit 
>> providers with the exception of the Noor Group, who's prefixes were 
>> withdrawn later.
>> 
>> The mechanism pursued by the Syrian state until last week, and the 
>> mechanism utilized by the Iranian state, during the last election, and 
>> recently, S/N blocking and rate throttling, and the mechanisms 
>> utilized by the Algerian state, the Bahrain state, the Lybian state, 
>> are distinct.
>> 
>> The utility of "keeping score by technical means" is that it allows an 
>> analysis of whether other technical mechanisms such as deep packet 
>> inspection and content analysis, routine in North America and present 
>> also in Europe, but requiring high capitalization of the intercept 
>> platform, are keeping pace with the repressive state's policy 
>> requirements and the liberation social movements and the political 
>> organizations means of maintaining internal and external communications.
>> 
>> I see no point in revisiting the recent limited statements of ICANN or 
>> ALAC, or their offered rationals, but I do see a point in attempting 
>> to know what access models actually exist, and having data sufficient 
>> to support predictive modeling of disruptive local policy on the 
>> regional and global internet.
>> 
>> Eric
>> 
>> * Some subscribers have attributed other mechanisms, or a lack of data 
>> sufficient to make any attribution.
>> ------
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>
>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>------