Why geeks say Ted Cruz is wrong about ICANN

csmonitor.com ^ | Laurent Belsie

[GailA]

Cruz is right, Eagle Forum is sending out alerts to all their state chapters for you to contact your congress critters to say NO on ICANN.

http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20160915/just-because

[boycott]

So why is it necessary to give up control? Why would anyone else want control?

The UN wants to govern it and tax it all in the name of redistribution of wealth. Also, to police the Internet so that it’s not offensive to muzzies.

[Henchster]

Yea, like I’m going to trust predictions from some Harvard or DNC think tank idiot.

I’ll make a prediction: Shortly after the transfer, the number one search on Google is going to be “Host Files.”

I’ve got mine prepared and ready, and FR is at the top of the list.

[Pontiac]

Suppose that the new ICANN regime decides that they don’t want to issue you a domain because you are a proponent of liberty in a totalitarian nation?

[ZULU]

B.S.

[AndyJackson]

Transferring ICANN is a bigger deal than what toppings for my sandwich at lunch today. The question is, what problem was Obama solving and why was it important enough to rise to the President's agenda to do something about it. Did someone pay off the Clinton foundation? Is it a payoff to keep Soros out of international jail?

Barry, Hill, what difference does it make?

It works fine right now. Why do you want to break it? Why?

[Pontiac]

I'll take my own "geek" advice which is that this nation needs to retain control and in fact, make it illegal for any later Congress to permit anyone except the US to be in control

No congress can be restricted by the acts of a previous congress. It would take a constitutional amendment to accomplish what you propose. Not likely to happen.

[jrestrepo]

I am a geek. Those guys are wrong.

[NonValueAdded]

ICANN is just the internet address book. It assigns names/addresses upon request.

Aye, but therein lies the rub. Think of this analogy: "Issue you a carry permit? No, you have no need. Request denied."

[AndyJackson]

But now you have a Harvard professor for it. What could go wrong?

[1malumprohibitum]

Excellent question! Why isn’t everyone asking the same thing? Why should we “give up” control? What benefits are there to doing so for us? For the internet? If we have a ton of taxpayer treasure invested in it, why in the world would we just give it away without at least implementing a way to recoup what we have put into it? Is this whole thing just because Obama wants to? Shouldnt it be pretty easy to see what interests are paying off the politicians to make this happen?

[boycott]

It works fine right now.

—

Exactly! And why would China and Russia want it out of our control is there was nothing to it?

[Sasparilla]

..Under the new ICANN regime, nations will be able to censor content “no more than they are now...

No more than they are now? How comforting.
China does a great job of censorship now. Other countries strongarm internet content now. What he said isn’t saying much.
It’s turning speech over to the proverbial big brother.

[Parmy]

ICAAN will have the same effect on America as NAFTA has. Bad idea.

[Rashputin]

So, the law to prohibit Federal funding of abortions was a joke from start to finish? Social Security can cease to exist if a simple majority of Congress says to no longer fund it? Congress can decide that providing for national defense doesn't include funding the Air Force anymore?

Tell me another joke.

[Louis Foxwell]

He who designs the map controls the traffic.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

... removes an excuse for authoritarian countries to demand greater oversight and regulation of Internet issues ...

So giving ICANN rights to “authoritarian countries” will turn ruthless dictators into Thomas Jefferson?

[boycott]

Seems we could rather easily pull ISIS and other terrorist content off the Internet but for some reason we don’t.

If we give ICANN away, my guess is that if someone ever says anything negative about muhammad it will be removed from the web. That may be part of hussein obama’s agenda.

To quote Obama: “The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander The Prophet of Islam”

[Carriage Hill]

👍

[combat_boots]

I reject the premise of these claims.

We have been lied to over so much in these last 8 years that our defenses are hardening.