Creating drama about this issue so we write the RINO’s and get nice messages back from the Corporatist RINO’s in Washington who did nothing meaningful about all the issues that came before this one did is a waste of my time.
What’s bad is going to happen anyway like it did with the Iran Deal helped by Republicans and Obamacare helped by Republicans even though they appeared to be opposing it like they intend to do with the internet issue this week.
Your opinion is duly noted. Thanks for sharing.
People who take the time to discourage others from trying perpetually baffle me.
I could just as easily say that congress will let Obama nationalize the vote counting process. So why vote?
But I don’t say that. Why do you think that is?
“Creating drama about this issue ...”
The REALITIES of this issue are this:
Paul Rosenweig
My testimony today is the product of more than two years of working within ICANN on the proposed IANA transition. I (along with many others, including my Heritage colleague Brett Schaefer) participated extensively in this process through testimony, research and publications ... [he lists very specifically his involvement] ... and some of my suggestions have been incorporated into the final CCWG-Accountability proposal and the revised bylaws.
In my testimony today, I want to address five key issues that I think warrant substantial caution:
• The IANA transition is a leap in the dark. Nobody can reasonably tell you that there is certainty about how it will work out. Yet the safe and secure functioning of the network is vital to economic and political freedom around the globe. It would be prudent to develop experiencewith the new governance model during a trial period before the transition is made irrevocable.
• ICANN is incorporated in California. Yet some around the globe question that decision and are working, as part of follow on work, to see ICANN moved to another jurisdiction. Assuredly, the American role in overseeing ICANN’s operations should not be terminated until that issue is resolved.
• The US government is delegated as the operator of the .Gov and .Mil top level domains. Rather than guaranteeing the permanent continuation of that role by way of contract, the NTIA and ICANN have chosen to exchange letters which, in the end, promise the US that ICANN will follow its policy and notify the government before any re-delegation is made.
Thus, American control of .Gov and .Mil (which are essential to the continued stable operations ofAmerican government IT systems) is not assured by any enforceable mechanism.
[EMPHASIS: .gov and .mil “NOT ASSURED BY ANY ENFORCEABLE MECHANISM.”]
Who is Paul Rosenweig?
1. Department of Homeland — deputy assistant secretary for policy.
2. Currently he runs a consulting organization for Homeland.
3. Rosenweig authored and edited numerous books on cyber-security and freedom of speech. [He also produced DVDs on those subjects.]
4. As for his politics, He’s been writing Heritage Foundation columns all the way back to 1977.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The threat to military sites specifically:
Regarding Rosenzweig’s concerns about .mil and .gov ...
[quote]
This reaffirmation [about how ‘safe’ military sites and government sites are] was made through an exchange of letters. Not only are the letters non-legally binding, they actually acknowledge the possibility that at some point a separation of the IANA function from ICANN might threaten the stability and security of the US government’s top level domains. I can’t speak for other observers, but for me, as a lawyer, an exchange of letters is a way of avoiding a contractually enforceable obligation. I know why ICANN would prefer that course of action – I have no idea why the NTIA would accept it on behalf of the US government.
[unquote]