[address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)

On 02/06/11 00:01, Martin Millnert wrote:
> 
> Increased censorship is a clear and present danger. It's our duty to
> confront this danger wherever we can.

I agree, but don't forget that trust goes both ways. In that sense it is
essential to note that the RIR's registrants are not isolated to one
particular jurisdiction. Your worry would be valid for any national IP
resource registry, but not for any of today's regional registries.

Several countries already operate a centrally managed list of prefixes
which all ISP's who operate within the country are required to block (in
practise peer with a BGP-box and null-route any pfx it announces). Yet
more governments are considering/planning such activities. Lawyers and
politicians involved with such schemes may initially be excited by the
idea of using centralised/international registers, but quickly realise
that an attempt to corner the operator of a central registry may destroy
its authority outside the jurisdiction within which the particular
registry operates. Not only would it undermine their filtering/censoring
efforts, but it would also ruin the technical/operational value of the
registry's certificates.

The big threat to freedom of speech through censorship would come via
global or regional treaties in which case all bets are off. The
existence of a central registry might simplify censoring efforts
initially, while the absence of such is no long term guarantee against it.


//per