Posted on 10/06/2016 9:55:24 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
At the stroke of midnight on September 30, 2016, America said good-bye to its long-time oversight of the internet, and along with it, the certainty of internet freedom.
Because the internet was started in the United States, from its inception, the system of managing domain names and numbers has always been conducted in or by the United States. In 1998, the Department of Commerce (DoC) contracted ICANN, a California-based non-profit, to perform the function of IANA[1] management. It’s a critical role to ensure that internet domain names are not duplicated and that the assigned numbers are secure. DoC maintained oversight of ICANN and also performed some related administrative tasks.
Under U.S. oversight, ICANN has been doing a stellar job of keeping the internet free and secure. But, as internet usage expanded beyond U.S. borders, demands came for the U.S. to cede control of internet oversight. These demands were always resisted. Then, on March 14, 2015, the Obama Administration announced that it would relinquish internet oversight and place it into the hands of a then-unnamed global multi-stakeholder. Free speech advocates and others expressed concern that the move might result in domain management falling into the hands of dictatorial regimes such as China or Russia. Both the DoC and ICANN assured the public that they would not allow internet oversight to transfer to a tyrannical government or to any government entity.
The proposed plan to transfer stewardship of IANA was finally completed in March of 2016 at an ICANN conference held in Morrocco. Under this proposal, ICANN itself will maintain authority over IANA, but will create an oversight body called the “empowerment community” to which it will have to answer. The proposal also imbues ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) with increased say. Though ICANN’s bylaws prohibit any particular government from making direct decisions regarding budgets, board member removal or ICANN governance, the new proposal will now make the GAC a participant in these decisions. Additionally, the requirement to reject GAC proposals will increase from a simple majority vote to a vote of 60 percent. These changes defeat the original purpose of the Committee, which was to ensure that no government would have too much influence over ICANN’s operations.
Currently there are 171 government members of the GAC and 53 non-governmental members that have observer status, including the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC),[2] as well as all the United Nations’ agencies that have an interest in global internet governance. (This includes UNESCO, which is largely influenced by the OIC.) Several of these members constitute tyrannical regimes or other types of anti-freedom entities.
When the discussion of Internet oversight relinquishment originally arose, some believed that because ICANN has no control over actual internet content, suppression of free speech was a non-issue. They were wrong. The OIC, claiming that it’s the “sole official representative of the Muslim world” and some of its Member States have already complained about the issuance of domain names “with an Islamic identity” such as .halal or .Islam, arguing that these should be reserved exclusively for OIC Member States so as not to “offend” Islam. Even under U.S. oversight, ICANN deferred the decision on private applications for use of these domain names, in effect capitulating to the OIC’s demands.
The DoC - ICANN contract expired on September 30, 2016. Though the DoC had the option to renew the contract for an additional three years, it declined. To their credit, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Thune (R- SD) led the charge in the Senate to stop the transfer by demanding that a transfer block be tacked on to budget-related legislation. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, already concerned with budget opposition by the Democrats, refused to comply.
Then, last week, four Republican Attorneys General filed a lawsuit in a Texas District Court, attempting to block the transfer. They haled from Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada. The Plaintiff States requested a declaratory judgment, a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to block the transfer, arguing that relinquishment of internet control amounted to a transfer of U.S. government property in violation of the Constitution’s Property Clause. They asserted that the Obama Administration simply does not have the authority to make such a transfer without congressional consent. Unfortunately, in a split court decision, the motion was denied.
Though some Democrats openly supported the transfer, such as Nita Lowey – (D –NY), Mike Honda – (D-CA), and Brain Schatz – (D-Hawaii), others, like the high profile Senator and Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin, confessed that they knew nothing about the issue and hadn’t even heard about it until Ted Cruz raised a stink.
For the most part, tech and social media companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon support the transfer of internet oversight, likely because ICANN is populated with tech gurus, who will now have more authority. Given that Facebook and Twitter already have “hate speech” policies that censor speech, it’s no wonder that they are complicit in supporting a move with potential free speech consequences.
Ed Black, President of the Computer and Communications Industry Association insists that all those who care about “internet freedom” support the transfer. Yet, how this “internet freedom” is interpreted, is obviously up for grabs. ICANN’s CEO and President admitted in his testimony at a recent Senate hearing, that ICANN is not bound by America’s First Amendment. Nor are the governments of other countries. For example, European countries that claim to have “freedom of speech,” argue that “hate speech” is not “free speech” and accordingly have various types of hate speech laws. Often, they do a balancing test of “freedom of speech” versus a so-called “right” to be free from “offense”. America is the only country in the world that truly protects free speech.
Those who understand the importance of internet oversight and believe that America should remain the stewards of internet freedom are not done fighting to keep its control out of the hands of questionable entities. Even though the DoC and ICANN have promised not to transfer oversight authority to dictatorial regimes, ICANN has already capitulated to OIC demands and ceded additional control to governments including authoritarian regimes. Furthermore, once America relinquishes control, she will never get it back. Transparency and accountability, though promised, can’t be guaranteed. And, down the road, yet another transfer could conceivably occur. America would have no power to prevent it.
Champions of freedom[3] are exploring ways to take back internet oversight, but the possibilities look bleak. One possibility is to appeal the Texas Court’s decision denying the motion made by the Republican Attorneys General. The other is to proceed to court in a full-fledged trial. Still another option is to pass legislation to try to take back control of the internet (since technically, it has already passed as of October 1, 2016). In the meantime, ICANN is trying to implement the transfer as quickly as possible, seeking completion prior to the U.S. Presidential election in November of 2016, just in case the new President disagrees with Obama’s view regarding America’s role in internet oversight.
At the stroke of midnight on September 30, 2016, in furtherance of Obama’s anti-exceptional, post-American, global agenda, the certainty of the internet’s security, stability, and freedom has vanished into thin air, only to be replaced by one big global question mark.
Trump can just deny Obama’s act as counter to national security.
This is the man our fellow countrymen voted in, twice.
yeah, there was fraud. but not 5 million voters worth.
If even 60 million out of the 65 million thought this was a good man, that’s BAD.
Another act of treason by the lawless President.
Communist traitor and Soros sock puppet.
ICANN does not control the server farms and ISP servers etc. that actually pass the internet searches, email data and house the DNS that cause recognition of the IP addresses.
Sure ICANN in it's new role could fiddle with who could use a '.com' etc. but if we just told ICANN to pound sand and made a group like the HTML 'council' for lack of a better word and assign our own '.whatever' identifiers and all of the private ISP's and server recognize them then ICANN would be irrelevant in 2 years.
The whole 'internet' name thing is a convenience from years ago. Here is a chance to do something new, different, fun and probably more efficient eventually.
Just think; no fed hot breath on your neck. Makes a person think of things.
just say'n
McConnell is such a RINO. No balls at all.
It will be interesting when he and President Trump negotiate. Likewise Paul RINO Ryan.
The true shock will not be felt by most voters until they are ‘denied service’ for what has been readily available for the last 25 years. They’ll have to go Cold Turkey from a free net.
Oversight Transition Isn't Giving Away the Internet, But Won't Fix ICANN's Problems
For those who don't know what EFF is, here is their mission statement:
About EFF
Quoting the first paragraph:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. We work to ensure that rights and freedoms are enhanced and protected as our use of technology grows.
~ MM ~
I agree 100%. High five.
We should make “a group like the HTML ‘council’ for lack of a better word and assign our own ‘.whatever’ identifiers.”
Just ignore the old group and make a new group. Tim Berners Lee is talking about .ww3 and other options. Heck, let’s just use one ‘w’ and make everyone want to use American tools again.
I question if this is all a lie by the US govt, so they can start stripping the freedom of people. This thing doesn’t past the smell test for me.
The issue is phony and if Obama, one person, doesn’t have that authority anyway. This is all a made up lie, by the US elites, to try and do away with more free speech. There isn’t anyone behind a curtain controlling the internet or security on it. This may also be away that the govt hacks into your information and steals your money. All under the cover that China or someone else did it.
I don’t know why this article would say Thune lead the charge...he was not even a co-sponsor. No mention of the House Bill by Duffy.
Just think; no fed hot breath on your neck. Makes a person think of things.
With all due respect, I would suggest you read the articles and view video posted below. Video of cybersecurity expert on Britt Hume’s show was particularly thought provoking.
Arthur Wildfire! March, has posted much original research on this subject as well. Many experts seem to have serious concerns...You may not have the fed’s hot breath down your neck—but you may have China’s or Brussels’s. They have no love of free speech and no First Amendment.
There will be no guarantee that the website to which you think you are going is actually the website at which you arrive.
Note these articles I posted...
Here is video by a CYBER-SECURITY EXPERT, who in addition to the FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, security expert Frank Gaffney and foreign affairs expert Ambassador John Bolton is very concerned...No mention of new internet bringing it back, Trump stopping it, etc...
Watch Video—4 minutes:
Video below, this cyber security expert, Morgan Wright, on For the Record Thurs, Sept. 28, with Britt Hume...Morgan Wright, says after Oct. 1, there is no putting the toothpaste in the tube...Brave New World where we don’t know if the address entered is really where we are going...
Starting at 22 minute mark...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1jGZnDzr_4
FCC Pai
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3474660/posts
F. Gaffney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3474585/posts
J. Bolton
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3472489/posts
Free Speech Expert...can’t guarantee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3472675/posts
In the meantime, ICANN is trying to implement the transfer as quickly as possible, seeking completion prior to the U.S. Presidential election in November of 2016, just in case the new President disagrees with Obama’s view regarding America’s role in internet oversight.
At the stroke of midnight on September 30, 2016, in furtherance of Obama’s anti-exceptional, post-American, global agenda, the certainty of the internet’s security, stability, and freedom has vanished into thin air, only to be replaced by one big global question mark.
During the past 8 years, pretty much anything bammy wants, I should oppose...This has proved to be axiomatic and served me well. Oh and the globalist technocrats/ Zuckerberg types want the transfer—another indication that I know I am on the right track being concerned.
IN addition, both Trump and Cruz oppose this transfer as well as others.
I truly hope they can stop this with an appeal or some other legal maneuver :(
ICANN already sold out the Chinese people in order to cut a deal with the Chinese government. Just to give you an idea what makes them tick. They like money and power.
~~~
‘Just think; no fed hot breath on your neck. Makes a person think of things.’
Obama agrees. He was proud to ‘deregulate’ the internet.
Just imagine, Obama of all people deregulating something?
ICANN is an artificial monopoly. It’s power is legal.
~~~
Bushwon brought up John Bolton.
Bolton knows how international contracts work BTW. He’s had a long history in the diplomatic community and his priority has always been ‘America first’ long before Trump ever said it.
Bolton staked his reputation on the line predicting this:
John Bolton on Obama’s Internet Handover: ‘Within Ten Years, the Internet as We Know It Will End’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3472489/posts
“What we’ve gotten out of the Internet, under the shelter of a private American organization that contracts with the Commerce Department, [is] one of the few cases that I can think of in our history where we’ve had that kind of government involvement without regulation and interference ... ” [snip]
“But the fact is, under American control, it’s had remarkable growth. It’s been kept free. It’s been able to withstand a lot of pressure to try and set rules that favor one side or another. And in an international environment, I can tell you from my own experience, when you get all kinds of governments from all over the world setting standards and making decisions, it will be far less free than it is now ...” [snip!]
Bolton called the Internet handover “a mistake of such colossal proportions that you would have thought we’d have a huge debate about it in this country.” [snip]
~~~
“Without that check, ICANN risks becoming an unregulated monopoly with no effective outside oversight and control.”
— Paul Rosenzweig
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3469586/posts
~~~
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.
~~~
He added:
• In the new ICANN, other governments will indisputably have increased influence over the corporation. [snip]
~~~
If you muck through his testimony, you learn a LOT about ICANN. For example:
[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.
So far as I know the ICANN giveaway is out of our hands politically now.
It’s important to be ready to skuttle ICANN’s power legislatively just as soon as Trump is elected — even any treaties they might cleave to in order to retain power. EVEN if it means sending the UN packing.
I agree. The people doing NDN and blockchain and other new tech don't need domain names although they use them for convenience. We can easily exchange data without names. The problem is the chaotic transition with companies like Google trying to keep control and censor.
The other battle is technology. Bitcoin blockchain for example does not need names although they use them for convenience. The current internet with named hosts eventually be replaced with something better. An example right now is NDN although it runs on top of the current internet. The replacement might be accelerated because we lose the legal battle and it will be chaotic no matter what happens legally. But chaos in the internet eventually produces order because techies will write the software to make it easy for everyone to use. It's just a matter of time.
The issue is phony and if Obama, one person, doesn’t have that authority anyway. This is all a made up lie, by the US elites, to try and do away with more free speech. There isn’t anyone behind a curtain controlling the internet or security on it. This may also be away that the govt hacks into your information and steals your money. All under the cover that China or someone else did it.
_________________________________
Please read the information I posted #17 and Arthur Wildfire! March’s post #19...A lot of information on those 2 posts...It is not a phony issue...Oh how I wish it was, but it is not :( It is real and it will affect you, me, and Free Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.