[Dallas59]

The US does not and has never controlled the internet, ICANN does not control the internet and never has. It is a network of networks.

The domain name system solely ensures that the domain names we use for websites and emails are globally consistent – if you type in an Iranian domain your browser knows where to find it. A lot of other aspects of Internet operations, such as routing, are completely separate from this. And generally, the internet consists of about 50,000 different private networks worldwide that use the Internet protocols to interconnect. All of them operate their own part of the Internet. All of them could bypass ICANN if they needed to or wanted to. Some do. They all use a common domain name root because it makes the system globally compatible.

ICANN officials have stressed, it doesn’t make sense to suggest a country controls the internet which is comprised of a set of privately operated networks which agree to exchange traffic using a common set of protocols. There is no central point of control of the internet at all. So, the idea that the U.S. is somehow giving up control through a contract that its entire purpose is to allow the administration of a set of identifiers is just sort of ludicrous. ICANN is not a governing body. The UN is not a governing body. ICANN is a large, professional corporation with more than 350 employees in seven offices around the globe. Global stakeholders, including U.S. businesses, end users, technical experts, public interest organizations and academics, oversee ICANN but not internet content.

[Freedom56v2]

With all due respect, I appreciate your reply, however, the articles to which I linked disagree with your conclusions...I am providing links...Where are yours assuring that there will be no changes when others are saying just the opposite? Frankly, no offense, but some of what you say sounds like it came off the ICANN website page...Why should I trust them? Again, read some my links and those by Arthur Wildfire! March.

You did not answer my question as to whether you read the links—I have a dozen threads under my name that basically refute what you are saying...I have a sneaking suspicion you did not read them as you did not reference them.

You know, just sayin’, but you are on the side of Obama, UN, Soros, and the Technocrats—Zuckerberg, Gates, Schmidt, et al. They really wanted this ICANN transfer just as they really want net neutrality too—do you? I pretty much know my position supports freedom, liberty, and national sovereignty when I am running against their grain...

As I stated a few posts ago, I did not want to debate this, and this has turned into a debate. I have a big problem with the transfer and obviously you are one who has no problem with it...My posting this thread was really a comment on the transfer taking place due to citizen inaction, a category into which you would obviously fall as you have no problem with it and actually seem to support...

I am sticking with the conclusions of the threads I posted which state the transfer is problematic for one reason or another.

BTW, I hope in 10 years, John Bolton, Frank Gaffney, and others are proven wrong and you are correct.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

‘The US does not and has never controlled the internet, ICANN does not control the internet and never has. It is a network of networks.’

First off, Dallas, you would need to believe that Senators Jeff Sessions, Grassly, and Mike Lee are fearmongers regarding ICANN. You would also have to call DONALD TRUMP a fearmonger on the issue.

And secondly: your claim is completely uninformed:

Registry Operator Code of Conduct.

The federal government had legislated ICANN to hold that legal power. But through their renewable contract they had authority to keep ICANN reined in. It was a rare success story in recent federal legislation — now expired thanks to uninformed opinions such as yours.