Posted on 09/26/2016 6:25:40 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
Too many people are confused.
Let's cut through the lies and make this as simple as 'ABC'.
Lie Number 1: "ICANN's just a 'phone book'."
No, ICANN is the chained up guard dog in the back yard. [More on that later.]
The closest thing to a phonebook is a Top Level Domain like .COM or .MIL. But calling them 'libraries' would be closer to the truth.
So who is the TLD's librarian?
That would be the 'Registrar' who manages the TLD's registry.
~ ~
Simple as ABC:
A ... ICANN .. the chained up watchdog.
B ... TLD ... Top Level Domain ...[such as .com or .mil]
C ... Registrar ... the TLD's librarian.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Lie Number 2: "ICANN can't do anything to your website."
That is a lie.
The pyramid of legal power is also as simple as ABC:
a. ICANN at the top.
b. The TLD's Registrar in the middle.
c. The web site's domain name at the bottom.
If anyone says 'there is no internet giveaway' just say this:
"ICANN regulates the TLDs with the 'Registry Code of Conduct'."
[I personally keep a copy of handy responses like this -- ready to paste at a moment's notice. Easy, done -- you're the debate's Wild Bill Hickock.]
~ ~ ~
Lie Number 3: "This will be easy to fix."
Here's the simple, quick response:
*Not if ICANN signs a foreign contract before January.*
The USA bestowed ICANN with oversight powers. That is US law.
And this has wa .... ay too much limited government!
Not enough fees and taxes on the internet.
And worst of all ...
... too much freedom of speech!
It's too American.
TYRANTS UNITE!
The globalists in our government promised foreign tyrants [and their drones] that we would 'share' internet oversight with them.
A group hug in the name of censorship.
To do that, Obama is running out the clock. He's refusing to renew the IANA functions contract.
Deadline -- this Friday.
If Obama does not renew the contract by then, his crusade against us, the 'bitter clingers', is complete.
Off ICANN roams like a glob-trotting free range chicken to peck about and negotiate with foreign powers as an international defector who fled from the 'evil' USA.
Result:
ICANN can choose its harem of foreign brides to wed the power of US law with 'hate speech' notions.
NAZIs would have been first in line while roasting their wiener schnitzels at the book burning fire. And by the way, Japan also controlled the media back when they ravaged China and Korea to the point that Tokyo Rose was as close as they got to 'freedom of speech'. Ironic that China now emulates WWII Japan in that regard.
But I digress.
If Hillary is sworn in she has the 'internet gatekeeper' she always wanted.
And if Trump is sworn in he will need to untangle foreign contracts.
Here are three ways he might 'fix' this:
[1] Bribe foreign powers.
[2] Compromise with a new treaty that appeases ICANN's tyrant-buddies.
[3] Re-legislate ICANN's legal authority.
Option [3] might trigger a full blown cyber-war [or worse], and Obama made us woefully ill-prepared. [*a*]
Conclusion
According to Rosenzweig there is no telling how this 'transformation' could be fixed. He called it 'a shot in the dark'. John Bolton's view is even gloomier. Bolton is staking his reputation on his certainty that the damage would be beyond repair. [*b*]
I also backed up my boldest claims with links.
Research done unless you can add something.
Regarding Rosenzweig’s concerns about .mil and .gov ...
[quote]
9This reaffirmation was made through an exchange of letters.16 Not only are the letters non-legally binding, they actually acknowledge the possibility that at some point a separation of the IANA functionfrom 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 acontractually enforceable obligation. I know why ICANN would prefer that course of action – I have noidea why the NTIA would accept it on behalf of the US government.
The best way is merely for the US to back out. That probably means creating our own with other countries doing the same with some level of cooperation. The systems needs to evolve to handle the capacity being used, but centralized government isn’t the answer, as you seem to agree.
Unfortunately this is not getting much news coverage. It’s all been about what may happen at the debate, then it will be all about what happened at the debate. I wish this would be brought up at the debate but I won’t hold my breath.
I concluded that IP addresses are messy but workable. I also concluded that the Krebs attack was IP, not domain, and mucking up the DNS does not change the equation for those attacks. But Krebs linked to Schneier https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/09/someone_is_lear.html who thinks the DNS is a target:
Verisign is the registrar for many popular top-level Internet domains, like .com and .net. If it goes down, there's a global blackout of all websites and e-mail addresses in the most common top-level domains.
China is responsible at least indirectly for the attack on Krebs which leverages insecure Chinese routers and other internet devices. Google stepped up to protect Krebs but will only protect media and other politically chosen domains. The rest of us are SOL.
The current question is whether giving up legal authority makes things worse. Undoubtedly it does. But more workarounds will be needed regardless considering Schneier's statement about taking out Verisign's domain name lookup. The biggest problem will be that everything will be messy and balkanized. You may need a special browser, or a special features will be added to every browser to do some alternative form of IP address lookup, and whoever runs that may be able to censor sites they don't like.
Wouldn’t the CR need to be voted on before Friday?
‘Unfortunately this is not getting much news coverage. It’s all been about what may happen at the debate ...’
A retired talk radio host confided with me that this issue seemed too complicated to inform listeners about.
I thought I had made it simple enough before, and now it’s ‘romper-room’ simple.
Sadly [sigh], that seems to be what listeners need on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.
I had no idea that radio listeners were such morons.
Facebook and Twitter and Kindle and possibly even Google would favor a more international firewall and probably give the US TLDs second-class status.
I bet you’re right. So the deadline is actually tighter than Friday.
The day of actual voting can vary according to the latest whip-count. I think that’s the term. The whip counts noses all the time and keeps a secret tally.
I should have realized that radio listeners aren’t very bright just by listening to radio hosts camp on single topics.
Okay, the new-new tagline:
ICANN giveaway complete any day now. Call Congress. Yes to SB3031 HR5418
Okay, the new-new tagline:
ICANN giveaway complete any day now. Call Congress. Yes to SB3031 HR5418
Nice!
I will be trying to get thru to Cruz and McConnell today for updates.
A person shouldn’t have to understand exactly how a threat or danger works if enough credible people issue a warning, maybe they should heed it.
His bio would probably mention too many agencies that have never had their names exposed to daylight.
The radio hosts need ratings, and right now listeners are only interested in the election. Start talking about ICANN, which most do not understand, and the listeners will turn the dial.
“People who see a warning must decide whether or not to comply. However, “warning viewers” (people for whom the warning is intended) are not blanks slates but rather start with a mental model containing three components. First, the viewer has general knowledge about the world and how it works. Second, s/he has a set of beliefs and expectations based on experience with the same or similar environment, product or technology. Lastly, the viewer enters the situation with a goal and strategy for achieving that goal.
Viewer history with the product or environment strongly affects danger perception. The greater the experience with no negative outcome, the lower the level of perceived danger. This is the “cry wolf” or “familiarization” effect, where people quit paying attention to uninformative input....
We live in a social context, so other people affect individual notions of norms, standards and acceptable behavior. It is not surprising, that degree of viewer behavior may be affected by whether other people are complying with the warning.”
“The Psychology of Warnings1”
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/psychwarnings.html
’ ... if enough credible people issue a warning, maybe they should heed it ... ‘
You make a lot of sense. I don’t get it. We’re often left to trust ‘inside sources’ — happens all the time.
I could post his educational background and detailed specifics, but you might be right — he’s deep in the intel community.
Very informative. Thank you!
I really RESENT being cobbled with Mayan Calender wackos when my sources are so compelling. But you’re right. That’s the perception. Others cried wolf, so they assume I’m the same foolish shepherd boy.
I don’t know if you have posted anything about the International Telecommunications Union, which is what ICANN would most likely answer to, and the proposals in their 2012 world conference. The proposed changes to the treaty at that time was firmly rejected by congress on a bipartisan basis and not signed by U.S. What a difference a few years makes.
Of course you know more about this than I do, thanks for continuing to bring attention to this.
This is outstanding. Local legislators will be contacted. I think they should contact their colleagues on the federal level, too.
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.