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
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.
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
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.
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.