U.S. government to cede control of key Internet body

Yep....just the names of this ICANN made me blink! HA!

I believe the Caliphate is already assembled, at least who the leaders will be. Iran and Saudi have been slinging it out for years as each wants the “Royal Title”..interesting is Saudi’s new Ambassador recently visited Iran’s PM...when push comes to shove the Muslims will always temporarily set aside their differences when they see being united is gain for them all.

It’s going to be controlled by “stakeholders” from various countries....and they’ve been squabbling years about what degree of regulation standards will be set.

Who appoints these and where they come from remains to be seen...

I don’t think the Internet will die...perhaps fracture with various nation groups developing their own. But then that would defeat the purpose of fair trade etc.

Carter gave away the Panama Canal; Obama, the Internet.

The latter may prove the more egregious.

They realize they cant control it so they will outsource the control. They think we’re stupid, well most are lokk at what we have running the show

Because they invented it?

I can only envision real problems on the horizon if this does happen. Odumbo wants control of what all of us say and/or do (you know, that menacing thing called “Free Speech”, Yes, the one in OUR Constitution). Turning over control of the Internet (IMO) will circumvent OUR constitution and free speech as we know it will no longer be allowed. Could easily happen.

That is my theory (Tin Hat? Maybe)

They’re setting the table and dishing out the tartar sauce.

Gubmint doesn’t invent anything. They controlled it, but did not invent it.

siliconANGLE » We have 18 months to find new governance for a single Internet, says ICANN | #MIT ECIR We have 18 months to find new governance for a single Internet, says ICANN | #MIT ECIR Ryan Cox | January 10th READ MORE inShare12 Fadi Chehade, as the President and CEO of ICANN, is frankly one of the more important people in the Internet world. His organization is responsible for two key aspects of the Internet. The first is managing the naming system of the Internet and how that system is used globally and how people reach it (ICANN manages the naming system through its policies and operations). The second is numbers. Specifically, any device that talks to the Internet (cell phone, smart phone, Mac, PC, etc.) is given a unique Internet Protocol or IP number, marking its specific entry point to the web. ICANN maintains the global IP numbering system. A single naming and numbering system equals a single Internet. Traditionally, ICANN has a function called The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) that is responsible for the global coordination of the DNS Root, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol resources. IANA is under contract with the U.S. Congress. More generically, that means that the U.S. “helps control” the Internet. However it was always envisioned that the contract between ICANN’s IANA and the U.S. would eventually go away. Chehade believes that contract with the U.S. government should in fact be “sunset”, and the time has come. Chehade believes that ICANN, who is accountable to the global community, should do so without U.S. government oversight. “The world is seeking and growing ever more anxious to see an independent, globally-accountable ICANN where no one government, no one organization, no one individual has oversight or rights higher than the others,” Chehade says. “I believe this is fundamental to the spirit of the Internet as well. Equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and governance of this global resource.” So does this mean the U.S. has had more of a stacked-deck in its favor? theCUBE co-host Dave Vellante, Chief Analyst at Wikibon, brings up the fact that the power of U.S. companies like IBM (who at one point had two-thirds of the profit of the web), Intel and Microsoft show that the Internet didn’t level the deck as much as it was supposed to, right? Or have other factors lead to U.S. companies power? Factors like venture capital, Silicon Valley, competitive realities, technical innovation, agility, etc. Turns out it was the latter, Chehade says emphatically. There is nothing stopping great entrepreneurs from other countries taking advantage of the Internet. Fragmented internet would cause tension amongst nations The outcome of a more balanced adjudication system would not take away the power of the U.S. in Chehade’s opinion. A more balanced system would thwart the very real danger though, that the Internet becomes fragmented. It is Chehade’s belief that if that happens, there will be so much friction between countries and entities to do commerce and to exchange information that the cost of doing business on the Internet would go up significantly. How much of a cost increase? Substantial. Increased frictional cost would let the world down at the policy, economic and physical levels. “The current governance model was born from a reality that was based in the U.S. – the Internet has since become vital to the worlds economy, to societies, to the political life, to the cultural life of the world,” says Chehade. “Governance mechanisms of the Internet need to become equally global and inclusive. That can be solved two ways. One, any one from any stakeholder group who wish to participate in shaping the policies and standards of the Internet need to have easy, equal access and we (ICANN) must facilitate that. Two, everyone has equal access.” However, theCUBE co-host Charles M. Sennott, Editor-at-Large with GlobalPost sees contradictions in that line of thinking. “You’re saying on the one hand we cannot let the Internet fragment, but on the other hand we need to be inclusive and global — aren’t those two things running right into each other?” . “The Internet is many many networks – what makes it one is a logical layer on top of the physical layer,” Chehade answers. “That logical layer includes what ICANN manages, names, numbers protocol parameters. That layer has to remain strong and in tact, in order for the physical infrastructure to be unified before we get to the application layer and content layer. If we lose that, and suddenly governments decide they will create their own numbering or naming system. A country like China, would name introduce to the world a Chinese Internet route.”

From your link. What is driving this is the same false guilt over the USA being predominate in anything. Who invented the Internet? And enabled it to be a WWW? Then it should remain with them.

I think the Russians would have claimed the moon if they landed first.

Sorry, that was supposed to be just a few lines.

I agree 100%.

America needs to stop messing around, bring back American jobs and balance our budget.

And stop giving away everything.

For crying out loud.

Another worry is SOPA..

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was a United States bill introduced by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to combat online copyright infringement and online trafficking in counterfeit goods. Provisions included the requesting of court orders to bar advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with infringing websites, and search engines from linking to the websites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to the websites. The proposed law would have expanded existing criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

Proponents of the legislation said it would protect the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and was necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign-owned and operated websites. Claiming flaws in present laws that do not cover foreign-owned and operated websites, and citing examples of active promotion of rogue websites by U.S. search engines, proponents asserted that stronger enforcement tools were needed.

Opponents claimed that the proposed legislation threatened free speech and innovation, and enabled law enforcement to block access to entire internet domains due to infringing content posted on a single blog or webpage. They expressed concerns that SOPA would bypass the "safe harbor" protections from liability presently afforded to websites by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Some library associations worried that the legislation's emphasis on stronger copyright enforcement would expose libraries to prosecution. Other opponents declared that requiring search engines to delete domain names violated the First Amendment and could begin a worldwide arms race of unprecedented Internet censorship.

On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia, Google, and an estimated 7,000 other smaller websites coordinated a service blackout, to raise awareness. Wikipedia said more than 162 million people viewed its banner. Other protests against SOPA and PIPA included petition drives, with Google stating it collected over 7 million signatures, boycotts of companies and organizations that support the legislation, and an opposition rally held in New York City.

In response to the protest actions, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) stated, "It's a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users and arm them with misinformation",and "it's very difficult to counter the misinformation when the disseminators also own the platform."

Access to websites of several pro-SOPA organizations and companies such as RIAA, CBS.com, and others was impeded or blocked with denial of service attacks which started on January 19, 2012. Self-proclaimed members of the "hacktivist" group Anonymous claimed responsibility and stated the attacks were a protest of both SOPA and the United States Department of Justice's shutdown of Megaupload on that same day.

Some opponents of the bill support the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN) as an alternative. On January 20, 2012, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Smith postponed plans to draft the bill: "The committee remains committed to finding a solution to the problem of online piracy that protects American intellectual property and innovation ... The House Judiciary Committee will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution."

Google DARPA.

The internet was indeed invented by the government, so that there could be communications in the event of a nuclear war. It is one of the few things they have done right.

Government doesn’t create anything. If you think they invented the internet, you must believe that algore was its co-inventor.