ISPA Position Paper says Internet Blocking must be Part of a ‘Clear Legislative Framework’

2 July 2026

ISPA has released a position paper on internet blocking. It details the technical challenges inherent in requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block end users from accessing internet content while reminding all of us that we live in a democracy that respects the right to access information.

This public release follows news that the National Gambling Board (NGB) has formally requested the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) to implement internet blocking to assist in addressing offshore illegal online gambling platforms targeting South Africans.

ISPA, as SA’s official internet Industry Representative Body (IRB), accepts that there are some forms of illegal content that access providers may be obligated to block. However, ISPA is adamant there needs to be a well-considered legal framework in place that respects the constitutional rights of South Africans and does not hamper the ability of ISPs to service consumers.

“ISPA’s position is that any disruption of internet services to South Africans should be done only as part of a clear legislative framework that balances the right to communicate against the potential harm of problematic content,” says Sasha Booth Beharilal, ISPA chair.

ISPA’s position paper outlines some of the challenges that all forms of internet blocking pose technically. A high-level view of the three main approaches to internet blocking reveals the following:

1. Domain name blocking

Websites and other internet content is often accessed via the domain name system (DNS). The simplest form of content blocking is to interfere with domain name requests for sites that are to be blocked. Domain blocking has the least impact on ISPs’ networks but is also relatively easy for technically-proficient users to circumvent.

2. IP address blocking

Hidden behind the DNS are Internet Protocol (IP) addresses that mostly look like numbers. In a similar way that an ISP can block a domain name query, it is possible to block a user on the ISP’s network from exchanging traffic with a particular IP address. Exactly how this is done depends on the operator’s network, but almost always has unintended consequences such as blocking unrelated innocent websites using the same address. In Europe, according to a recent report by the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) a court-ordered block of a handful of shared IP addresses inadvertently took down more than half a million unrelated sites. As with domain name blocking, IP address blocking is relatively easy for end-users to circumvent by installing a Virtual Private Network (VPN), for instance.

3. Packet inspection

A third, more invasive mechanism for blocking requires that ISPs inspect each packet of data generated by an end-user. This approach to limiting internet services is typically used only by autocratic governments in countries where citizens do not have the same rights enjoyed by South Africans. Packet inspection requires specialised, costly equipment, has a negative impact on network performance, and can often still be bypassed by end users using VPNs.

Next, the five key principles of ISPA’s proposed approach to internet blocking are set out in the ISPA position paper and summarised below.

1. Judicial legal framework

Since internet censorship by its nature involves interfering with fundamental constitutional rights, blocking requests should always be directed by a court or a judge, and not an administrative or regulatory body. All blocking obligations should be clearly set out in an appropriate legislative framework, and be subject to appropriate oversight and judicial review.

2. Mandatory public disclosure

Any blocking obligations should be subject to public scrutiny. Citizens whose rights may be infringed by mandated ISP blocking of content should know the extent to which rights are being limited.

3. Time-limited measures

All blocking measures should be temporary and subject to periodic review to ensure that they remain relevant, necessary and proportionate.

4. Blocking should not require network modification

An ISP should be required to implement a block to the best of its ability within the technical constraints of its network. Content blocking orders should not dictate the method used by an ISP and should not require an ISP to install additional equipment.

5. Fair allocation of costs

The costs of blocking obligations should be fairly allocated. ISPs must not be left out-of-pocket as a result of implementing mandatory blocking. ISPs should be entitled to levy an administrative fee to implement a block, but this should be limited to the actual cost to the ISP.

“Regulators are often quick to conclude that requiring ISPs to disrupt the services they provide to their customers will be a silver bullet to solve their problems. International experiences indicate otherwise. While there are some, limited circumstances where there may be a need for specific content to be blocked, such steps often have unintended consequences. ISPA looks forward to working with policymakers and other stakeholders on the development of a legal framework that respects the rights of South African citizens,” concludes Booth-Beharilal.

ISPA’s internet blocking position paper is available here.

Founded in 1996, ISPA is the only internet sector IRB officially recognised by the DCDT. ISPA advocates for an open, free, and competitive internet landscape.

Visit www.ispa.org.za for more information and follow ISPA on X and Linkedin.