[At-Large] RES: Proposed statement of the ALAC regarding the current situation in Egypt

[Cintra Sooknanan]

Dear Olivier,

Your draft is a good start but I agree with Avri and Eric's statement.

Perhaps we can incorporate a paragraph that addresses the lacuna created on
the Internet by the Egyptian Government's actions and highlights that such
actions not only create network instability and go against human rights, but
primarily hurt the Egyptian economy and the World's confidence in the
Interim Government.

Regards

Cintra Sooknanan

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> >On 1 Feb 2011, at 20:12, Vanda UOL wrote:
> >
> >>  I can endorse it. More than this is out of the ICANN´s scope.
> >
> >While I endorsed the statement, I do not believe
> >that more is out of ICANN's scope, though I
> >understand it is out of some people's comfort
> >zone
> >
> >It may be politically difficult for some, and it
> >may be contrary to the political aims of others,
> >but responding to this sort of attack on the
> >Internet is what ICANN's scope as a steward is
> >all about.  ICANN should not remain silent on
> >the issue of kill switches that render the
> >network unstable.  ICANN should not just bury
> >its head when national actions cause properly
> >assigned addresses and ASs to become unreachable
> >because of political action, no matter who
> >throws the switch or why.  Whether it is Egypt's
> >action last week, or US legislation later this
> >year, rendering parts of the network
> >inaccessible is something that ICANN cannot
> >allow to happen while standing silently and idly
> >by.
>
>
> Avri,
>
> I think I agree with you.
>
> Anyway, a question from technical ignorance (as
> usual :-)). Are there technical implications for
> the rest of the Internet to causing ASs to become
> unreachable?  The ISOC note covers some issues,
> but from ICANN/IANA perspective is this a bad
> thing.  If yes, ICANN should comment, as should
> ALAC
>
> In new TLD discussions around "offensive strings"
> often hear comments suggesting governments that
> don't like a tld could simply block it.  I had
> heard, and this is really my question, that while
> blocking a TLD (cc or g) now has no technical
> impact on the global Internet, once all TLDs are
> DNSSEC signed such blocking might cause problems.
> I do not know the nature of the problems,
> significant or not (or even if real, I  may have
> just misunderstood something).  If there are
> technical implications now to actions such as
> Egypt's, or will be in the new future when tlds
> are DNSSEC signed, then it's within ICANN's scope.
>
> Clarification/correction appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> >a.
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >At-Large mailing list
> >At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>