Whether we wish to admit it, the way the internet is used is in the midst of a major morph due to the consequences of Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine. Russia is moving to cut off internet access to Ukraine and to limit internet access to its own populace. Ukraine is seeking to limit Russia\u2019s disinformation and ability to conduct commerce. Organizations continue to navigate their way through a world of sanctions and direct government requests to take specific actionsWhile the situation may appear to be black and white, it is, in reality, several shades of gray and is happening in the midst of the internet\u2019s transition to multistakeholder governance. On March 10, 2022, the internet community issued a paper titled \u201cMultistakeholder Imposition of Internet Sanctions.\u201d This \u201cconversation document,\u201d signed by a plethora of individuals from companies and organizations, posited seven principles:Disconnecting the population of a country from the internet is viewed as a disproportionate and inappropriate sanction.Ineffective sanctions waste time; evaluation of the efficacy of sanctions must be made.Sanctions must be focused and precise with unintended consequences minimized.Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are potential targets of sanctionsThe internet does not lend itself to the imposition of sanctions in national conflicts.Challenges the appropriateness of governments to attempt to compel Internet governance mechanisms as a tool in the imposition of sanctions outside of the multistakeholder decision-making processThere are appropriate, effective, and specific sanctions that the organization may wish to consider in its deliberative processIn the conversation document, recommendations were made, given the \u201cmoral imperatives that call us to action in defense of society.\u201d The letter recommends discussion and formation of a multistakeholder mechanism that would publish sanctioned domains and IP addresses, to be \u201cconsumed by any organization that chooses to subscribe to the principles and their outcome.\u201dThe document ends with a call for such deliberation to determine \u201cwhether the IP addresses and domain names of the Russian military and propaganda organs should be sanctioned, and to lay the groundwork for timely decisions of similar gravity and urgency in the future.\u201dOrganizations deliberate response to Russia\u2019s attack, governments impose sanctionsThe governments of the UK and U.S. weren\u2019t waiting for the aforementioned deliberation and issued sanctions on the Russian propaganda organs. The UK government slapped 12 organizations with sanctions for publishing \u201cfalse and misleading\u201d information originated by Russian intelligence. The sanctioned entities included, New Eastern Outlook, Oriental Review, and the infamous Internet Research Agency.The U.S. noted it was escalating sanctions against the \u201cnetwork of Yevgeny Prigozhin,\u201d which includes the aforementioned Internet Research Agency, his family, and a bevy of corporate entities. In addition, the Russian foreign intelligence service, the SVR, controls a number of outlets that Treasury has targeted in its sanctions list including the Strategic Culture Foundation and its outlets Odna, Rodyna, Rhythm of Eurasia, and the Journal of Kamerton. In addition, Svetlana Georgiyevna Zamlelova, chief editor of Kamerton, was individually sanctioned. The Eastern Outlook and Oriental Review were identified as being under SVR control and actively spreading disinformation. While the Russian military intelligence has its own disinformation outlets to which they invest and these include InfoRos, OOO and IA InfoRos. Closing out the trifecta of Russian intelligence entities active in the disinformation arena is the FSB (Federal State Security), whose Crimea-based NewsFront and the entity focused on elections SouthFront were included.Companies try to thread the needle with Russia\/Ukraine conflictInternational pressure, both at the consumer level as well as the governmental level is being felt by companies large and small. As noted another CSO article, \u201cThe Ukraine\/Russia information war is forcing companies to choose a side,\u201d it can be expected to continue. However they respond, there may be both short- and long-term consequences. Ukraine\u2019s government is making demands of companies such as Meta, Cloudflare and many others.These companies are in the position of having to thread the delicate needle of limiting the professional offerings in Russia, but not turning out the lights. As an example, Cloudflare has landed on its corporate and business decision to remain active in Russia.As its blog post of March 6 articulates, \u201cWe believe the shutting down Cloudflare\u2019s service entirely in Russia would be a mistake,\u201d so in the face of Ukraine directly asking that terminate their offering, they didn\u2019t as they believe themselves to be \u201cproviding a more open, private and secure Internet.\u201d In their defense, the same blog post claims curtailing its offering would \u201cdo little harm to the Russian government.\u201dThe world interprets organizations\u2019 actions regarding RussiaTheir nuanced action did not keep them off the Yale University School of Management list of 37 companies that are \u201cdigging in\u201d demands for exit or reduction of activities. It needs to be highlighted that this list is dynamic and lacks any of the nuances described above.That said, 52 companies have been identified as still trying to figure out what they are going to do and have been placed in the \u201cbuying time\u201d category, which includes having declared no new relationships within Russia.It is fair to say that today\u2019s decision is written on paper and not granite. As the geopolitical and moral situation changes, so too will many corporate positions. Indeed, as of the penning of this piece, a few of the 37 entities designated by Yale as \u201cdigging in\u201d have announced they are adjusting their Russian instance.