[Sanctions-Discuss] Afghanistan

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Mar 29, 2022, at 5:29 PM, Muhammad Aslam Popal <aslam.popal at gmail.com> wrote:
> My personal view is that we need to come up with clear criterias as to sanction any of the organizations or individuals which will help us in deciding whether they are in compliance or not (not sure if that is legally possible) . Though the focus could be broadened as there are other governments that treat people in inhumane manner , the cause could be rogue governments , factions , agencies  or directly tied to religious beliefs .

I think we don’t have consensus for (and I think it would be very difficult to get consensus for) defining any _new_ sanction ourselves… I think there’s a fairly clear consensus that a sanction, by definition, is something that is imposed by a government.  That is, a government says that an entity is sanctioned… and then it’s up to the private sector to make that happen.  The problem being that if government A says someone is sanctioned, and Internet networks implement that sanction, it will be extraterritorial… The sanction will have effect in country B as well as country A, and government A doesn’t have authority over country B.  Thus our task, if we’re trying to help Internet networks be compliant with the sanctions their governments are handing down, is to figure out whether they’re actionable with regard to the Internet in the first place (many individuals won’t have IP addresses or domains), and then whether a sufficient quorum of governments agree that something should be sanctioned to warrant Internet networks implementing the sanction, knowing that the effect will be global, not national.

So I’m not really worried about adding things to our plate, when governments are already adding many sanctions…  I see our task as being more related to figuring out whether governments are generally in agreement, whether ISPs are incorporated in jurisdictions that have imposed sanctions (such that those ISPs would need to be compliant), and whether there’s anything there to sanction in the first place.

> My suggestion is to focus toward the current one and we could do an experimental implementation case with much ease .

Agreed, certainly.

                                -Bill

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.sanctions.net/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20220329/992434ef/attachment.sig>