What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Obama About To Give Away Internet Control (1 Viewer)

Is this going to be a typical Jim11 thread where you link to some nonsense, and then vanish as soon as it gets picked apart?   Because those threads really suck.

 
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313



US ready to 'hand over' the internet's naming system


Thinkstock The US is giving up a considerable power over the way the internet functions

The US has confirmed it is finally ready to cede power of the internet’s naming system, ending the almost 20-year process to hand over a crucial part of the internet's governance.

The Domain Naming System, DNS, is one of the internet’s most important components. 

It pairs the easy-to-remember web addresses - like bbc.com - with their relevant servers. Without DNS, you’d only be able to access websites by typing in its IP address, a series of numbers such as "194.66.82.10".

More by circumstance than intention, the US has always had ultimate say over how the DNS is controlled - but not for much longer. 

It will give up its power fully to Icann - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - a non-profit organisation. 

The terms of the change were agreed upon in 2014, but it wasn’t until now that the US said it was finally satisfied that Icann was ready to make the change

Icann will get the “keys to the kingdom”, as one expert put it, on 1 October 2016. From that date, the US will lose its dominant voice - although Icann will remain in Los Angeles. 

If anyone can, Icann?

Users of the web will not notice any difference - that’s because Icann has essentially been doing the job for years anyway.

But it’s a move that has been fiercely criticised by some US politicians as opening the door to the likes of China and Russia to meddle with a system that has always been “protected” by the US. 

"The proposal will significantly increase the power of foreign governments over the Internet,” warned a letter signed by several Republican senators, including former Presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz. 

Whether you think those fears are justified depends on your confidence in the ability of Icann to do its job. 

It was created in 1998 to take over the task of assigning web addresses. Until that point, that job was handled by one man - Jon Postel. He was known to many as the “god of the internet”, a nod to his power over the internet, as well as his research work in creating some of the systems that underpin networking.

Mr Postel, who died not long after Icann was created, was in charge of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Administration of the IANA was contracted to the newly-formed Icann, but the US's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Department of Commerce, kept its final say over what it was able to do. 

It’s that final detail that is set to change from October. No longer will the US government - through the NTIA - be able to intervene on matters around internet naming. 

It rarely intervened. Most famously, it stepped in when Icann wanted to launch a new top-level domain for pornography, “.xxx”. The government wanted Icann to ditch the idea, but it eventually went ahead anyway. 

From October, the “new” Icann will become an organisation that answers to multiple stakeholders who want a say over the internet. Those stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technical expertise. 

Best option

“It's a big change,” remarked Prof Alan Woodward from the University of Surrey.

"It marks a transition from an internet effectively governed by one nation to a multi-stakeholder governed internet: a properly global solution for what has become a global asset."

Technically, the US is doing this voluntarily - if it wanted to keep power of DNS, it could. But the country has long acknowledged that relinquishing its control was a vital act of international diplomacy. 

Other countries, particularly China and Russia, had put pressure on the UN to call for the DNS to be controlled by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication [SIZE=.75em]Russia had been among the countries calling for the internet to be controlled by the UN[/SIZE]

A treaty to do just that was on the table in 2012 - but the US, along with the UK, Canada and Australia, refused, citing concerns over human rights abuses that may arise if other countries had greater say and control over the internet and its technical foundations. 

Instead, the US has used its remaining power over DNS to shift control to Icann, not the UN.

In response to worries about abuse of the internet by foreign governments, the NTIA said it had consulted corporate governance experts who said its the prospect of government interference was “extremely remote”.

"The community’s new powers to challenge board decisions and enforce decisions in court protect against any one party or group of interests from inappropriately influencing Icann,” it said in a Q&A section on its website

As for how it will change what happens on the internet, the effects will most likely be minimal for the average user. 

"This has nothing to do with laws on the internet,” Prof Woodward said. 

"Those still are the national laws that apply where it touches those countries. 

"This is more about who officially controls the foundations of the Internet/web addresses and domain names, without which the network wouldn't function." 

Follow Dave Lee on Twitter @DaveLeeBBCand on Facebook

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can't read the WSJ article but snopes says...
Here is the article


An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.



When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.” 

It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.

Advertisement
Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.

Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, called it “simply stunning” that the “politically blinded Obama administration missed the obvious point that Icann loses its antitrust shield should the government relinquish control.”

The administration might not have considered the antitrust issue, which would have been naive. Or perhaps in its arrogance the administration knew all along Icann would lose its antitrust immunity and look to the U.N. as an alternative. Congress could have voted to give Icann an antitrust exemption, but the internet giveaway plan is too flawed for legislative approval.

As the administration spent the past two years preparing to give up the contract with Icann, it also stopped actively overseeing the group. That allowed Icann to abuse its monopoly over internet domains, which earns it hundreds of millions of dollars a year. 

Earlier this month, an independent review within Icann called the organization “simply not credible” in how it handled the application for the .inc, .llc and .llp domains. The independent review found Icann staffers were “intimately involved” in evaluating their own work. A company called Dot Registry had worked with officials of U.S. states to create a system ensuring anyone using these Web addresses was a legitimate registered company. Icann rejected Dot Registry’s application as a community, which would have resulted in lowered fees to Icann.

Delaware’s secretary of state objected: “Legitimate policy concerns have been systematically brushed to the curb by Icann staffers well-skilled at manufacturing bureaucratic processes to disguise pre-determined decisions.” Dot Registry’s lawyer, Arif Ali of the Dechert firm, told me last week his experience made clear “Icann is not ready to govern itself.”

Icann also refuses to award the .gay domain to community groups representing gay people around the world. Icann’s ombudsman recently urged his group to “put an end to this long and difficult issue” by granting the domain. Icann prefers to earn larger fees by putting the .gay domain up for auction among for-profit domain companies. 

And Icann rejects the community application for the .cpa domain made by the American Institute of CPAs, which along with other accounting groups argues consumers should expect the .cpa address only to be used by legitimate accountants, not by the highest bidder. An AICPA spokesman told me he has a pile of paperwork three feet high on the five-year quest for the .cpa domain. The professional group objected in a recent appeal: “The process seems skewed toward a financial outcome that benefits Icann itself.”

The only thing worse than a monopoly overseen by the U.S. government is a monopoly overseen by no one—or by a Web-censoring U.N. Congress still has time to extend its ban on the Obama administration giving up protection of the internet. Icann has given it every reason to do so.

 
"This is more about who officially controls the foundations of the Internet/web addresses and domain names, without which the network wouldn't function." 

Exactly, which is why it would be better if the USA retained control. But all you "globalists" don't care. Keep your little heads in  the sand.

 
:lmao:

I love how the hayseeds can't see this is a bad thing just because JIM  posted it. All partisan all the time

 
Is the perceived issue with the WAY it's being turned over, WHO it's being turned over to or that it's even being turned over?  TIA.

 
:lmao:

I love how the hayseeds can't see this is a bad thing just because JIM  posted it. All partisan all the time
The first article you posted makes it pretty clear this isn't a bad thing.

More from Icann

Myth:

This transition is “giving the Internet to authoritarian regimes.”

Fact:

The U.S. Government has made it clear that we will not accept a proposal that replaces its role with a government or intergovernmental organization.

The criteria specified by the Administration firmly establish Internet governance as the province of multistakeholder institutions, rather than governments or intergovernmental institutions, and reaffirm our commitment to preserving the Internet as an engine for economic growth, innovation, and free expression.

The U.S. government will only transition its role if and when it receives it receives a satisfactory proposal to replace its role from the global Internet community — the same industry, technical, and civil society entities that have successfully managed the technical functions of Internet governance for nearly twenty years.

Myth:

With the U.S. withdrawal from stewardship over the IANA functions, the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union will take over the Internet – making it easier for repressive regimes to censor speech online.

Fact:

The transition process that is underway will help prevent authoritarian countries from exerting too much influence over the Internet by putting control of key Internet domain name functions in the hands of the global community of Internet stakeholders — specifically industry, technical experts, and civil society — instead of an intergovernmental organization. 

Myth:

The U.S. Government transition will lead to blocking of web sites.

Fact:

The Internet is not controlled by any one government or entity. It is a network of networks.  The U.S. Government’s role with respect to the Domain Name system is a technical one. Our work has been content neutral and policy and judgment free. 

Free expression online exists and flourishes not because of U.S. Government oversight with respect to the Domain Name System, or because of any asserted special relationship that the U.S. has with ICANN.  Instead, free expression is protected because of the open, decentralized nature of the Internet and the neutral manner in which the technical aspects of the Internet are managed.

We have made clear in our announcement of the transition that open, decentralized and non-governmental management of the Internet must continue.
You guys getting worked up about this are just looking for something to get worked up about. This has been the plan for 2 decades.

 
The first article you posted makes it pretty clear this isn't a bad thing.

More from Icann

You guys getting worked up about this are just looking for something to get worked up about. This has been the plan for 2 decades.
The WSJ put stuff out there willy nilly. To be honest I don't know if it's good or bad. I do know the change  it has more downside that upside 

 
Next is 8 years of madness with HRC, unless her health prevents it.
You and your fellow freepers might actually be in for a longer stretch of lib presidents to crank about than just eight years. BTW, it appears that traffic is way down at FR. To quote Robert Duvall in Open Range, "It looks like you're losing your army, sherriff."

 
How can you say you know it has more downside than upside?? 
I'm very happy with the Internet now , are you? Not sure how to make it better , I know things could change to make it worse . 

So so to sum up if it stays the same , great . But to turn a blind eye to potential downsides is foolish .

 
I'm very happy with the Internet now , are you? Not sure how to make it better , I know things could change to make it worse . 

So so to sum up if it stays the same , great . But to turn a blind eye to potential downsides is foolish .
What's the downside here? Please explain as technically as possible. TIA.

 
I'm very happy with the Internet now , are you? Not sure how to make it better , I know things could change to make it worse . 

So so to sum up if it stays the same , great . But to turn a blind eye to potential downsides is foolish .
I liken it to when the US ceded control of the Panama Canal. Lots of outrage, but nothing has become of that. I see Panama is even expanding

 
Will have 0 effect on any normal internet user (i.e. nearly all, if not all, of us). But OBAMA!! Therefore, bad.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top