Posted on 06/15/2016 5:53:16 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
Senior officials from the Commerce Department announced that they’ve approved a pending proposal aimed at offloading oversight of the Internet’s name-and-address system to an international body made up of technologists, businesses, governments and public interest advocates. It’s a move that’s filled with symbolism: Supporters say it reflects the fulfillment of a longstanding promise by the United States to keep the Web an open place where no single government, corporation or other entity can singlehandedly influence how the Internet evolves.
We are SURRENDERING that control to a freak show alliance unless congress does something. This is who would control the internet unless congress does something:
"ICANN could instead be in the hands of businesses, individuals, and multiple global governments."
There will also be petition drives, the equivalent of online polling, to decide who should lose control of a given domain name. So imagine the fun Google and Facebook would have in herding votes against certain people, such as Pamela Gellar.
Earlier news:
OBAMA READY TO CEDE AMERICA’S CONTROL OF INTERNET...
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/272568-internet-domain-handoff-takes-major-step-forward
Also, the ICANN keyword.
1 - It was not theirs to give away.
2 - Follow the money.
3 - Document the treason, and hold them responsible.
Ted Cruz slams DNS overseer ICANN a second time
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/05/cruz_slams_dns_overseer_icann_again
[BTW — I am also alarmed by the ICANN giveaway and smell a rat, just to be clear.]
Republican presidential wannabe Ted Cruz, along with two other Senators, has lambasted DNS overseer ICANN a second time for failing to answer questions over its former CEO’s ties to China.
In a letter [PDF] sent to ICANN chairman Steve Crocker on Monday, Cruz and Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Michael Lee (R-UT) demanded answers “to a series of unanswered questions” in previous letters they had sent. These include ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and the planned transition of the critical IANA contract from the US government to the non-profit California corporation planned for this September.
ICANN recently submitted its proposal to the Department of Commerce to take over the IANA contract, and for that reason, the letter states, “it is imperative that we receive a response to our letter.”
The Senators then lambasted the organization for failing to respond, even after it asked for extra time. “After sending our initial request 32 days ago, your staff indicated that you would be unable to respond before March 18. Two weeks has passed since your own self-extended deadline, and ICANN has not only failed to provide a response, but has been unable or unwilling to provide an exact date for when we can expect a complete response to our March 3 letter,” it complains.
The letter also takes ICANN’s former CEO Fadi Chehade to task for failing to respond to the questions it sent him back in February. Chehade has since left the organization, but in the two months before his departure, he made a serious of controversial decisions and announcements, including the fact that he would front a new internet governance effort by the Chinese government.
The Senators’ letter reads: “We would note that not only did Mr Chehade fail to respond to our questions in full, but he disparaged the oversight request during a February 5 question-and-answer session in Los Angeles, California, with members of ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization Non-Contracted Party House.”
It then quotes Chehade as saying that Cruz’s letter was “not driven by anyone really worried about the transition. This is someone really worried about politics.”
The response from Cruz et al? They resent both letters and asked again for responses. “We ask that you and Mr. Chehadé provide a response to all unanswered questions from our February 4 and March 3 letters as soon as possible, but no later than 9am on Thursday, April 7, 2016,” it reads.
Not the first time
ICANN is notoriously poor at answering questions it doesn’t want to answer, even when they come from powerful figures.
In 2011, it infuriated the general counsels of the world’s largest public international intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) including the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), World Health Organization (WHO), NATO, the OECD and the United Nations when it continually ignored their requests [PDF] to protect their names under new top-level domains.
The issue escalated to the point where the world’s governments had to intervene and the program itself was nearly derailed.
In 2013, ICANN also simply ignored increasingly angry letters [PDF] from the Article 29 Working Party, which is made up of the European Union’s data protection authorities, over how it was breaking European law with its domain name registration policies.
In both cases, when the pressure became such that ICANN’s policy processes came under threat, the organization’s staff made changes in the background in an effort to appease them.
ICANN has also been heavily criticized for years for failing to provide any useful information to requests sent through its formal “documentary information disclosure policy” (DIDP) – a system set up in 2012 in response to previous complaints about how opaque its systems were.
In one of the most egregious examples, ICANN refused [PDF] to even provide information about how it made the decision to refuse prior requests for information.
Part of the IANA transition plan sent last month to Commerce includes a provision that would overhaul the DIDP to force ICANN to provide more information about how it makes decisions.
Cruz missile
In the case of Ted Cruz and the other senators, however, ICANN is under a little more pressure to provide a response, since the IANA transition agreement requires the approval – or, more accurately, the disapproval – of Congress to pass.
Under an agreement reached between the Obama administration, the Department of Commerce, and Congress, Commerce will inform Congress about the process and provide it for review before it is signed by the president. However, it would require Congress to pass legislation to prevent it from passing.
Although Ted Cruz is unpopular in the Senate, any noise around the deal could cause a delay and push the transition past its current deadline and into the next presidency, where it is far from certain that such a deal would gain approval.
Cruz’s questions largely involve ICANN providing information about its Board’s internal discussions and decisions surrounding Chehade’s decision to front the Chinese government’s World Internet Forum. ®
When coming in for the final blow, the first the a dangerous enemy wants to do is blind you.
I lost the research, but I’m under the impression that leaders in Europe are working with Facebook on ways to suppress hate speech unless well, unless it’s like this ...
Facebook group “Assassinate Donald Trump” allowed to remain, “Does not violate standards”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3404670/posts
I assume that Facebook’s programming would be used to help ‘out’ any websites that progressives might disapprove of, such as Pamela Gellar.
A few other updates of less importance coming up at Digging Deep:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2636478/posts?page=1870
[Currently working on Pamela Gellar v Facebook]
Most of the time-—I can’t help but believe we live in a bizarro world where the vast majority of our leaders (of both parties) are simply in jaw-dropping awe of the enormous crimes successfully committed by the Clintons and in even greater awe of what they have always been able to to get away with....and are engaged in an emulation exercise to mimic them. The model has been to stand in the flow of bribery money to sell off Americas’ vast assets to not necessarily the highest, but literally *any* bidder.
The Clintons are if nothing else, world class salespeople. They find out what other nations aspire to, what of ours they want, and structure a deal whereby those countries get what they want and the Clintons benefit. We’re the richest nation; it only stands to reason that the easiest money is to be made by selling our best stuff to whichever country wants it most. Whether it’s missile tech to the Chinese; influence and infiltration to the Arabs or nuke tech to the Iranians, nothing is out of bounds. It’s just a matter of structuring the deal and collecting the grift, while trumpeting their 30+ years of enlightened public service and trashing and embarassing us for hoarding the asset pile they’ve figured out how to climb.
The naivete of those who somehow think they will be shamed into some other form of behavior...is unfathomable. To me, at least.
Thanks for all the hard work!
Back in the late 90s, the founder of Judicial Watch [Larry Klayman] said that the Clintons need to keep in power to avoid prison. Now Trump is saying it.
But if our communications are shut down?
We flounder, stumble. Tiny pockets of confused voices all over the nation. God knows what the Establishment could achieve during the next few months.
I don’t work as hard here as others. Actually, coming here less gives me a fresh perspective.
God bless you, Rusty, and all the others who work so tirelessly and make it easy for guys like me to piece things together in a hurry.
FRegards ....
Iffen it ain’t broke.......................
Interesting observation about the Clintons. Kind of like the Sopranos.
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.