Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
ICANN Takeover
Topic Started: Oct 1 2016, 10:48 AM (257 Views)
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Editorial
Copy/paste of a portion from the editorial:
Quote:
 
The Obama Administration supports allowing the international takeover of the internet, which was developed here in America, first by our military, and is currently controlled by American interests.

If that happens, some non-elected body made up mostly of representatives of foreign governments, which in general oppose and work against American interests and the freedoms we enjoy in our country, will be in control of the most powerful information and commerce tool ever created.

The UN could ultimately take control and it is not favorable to America and hasn't been for years
Quote:
 
This proposal is to essentially give up the US oversight role that it's had for the last 20 years, basically for the entire commercial lifespan of the Internet to a company called ICANN, which is an international organization, which includes a number of foreign countries

I've read a few articles, but can't figure out what or why this is happening.

Those of you in tech fields, are you aware of this, and, does it matter?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Rainman
Oct 1 2016, 10:48 AM

Those of you in tech fields, are you aware of this, and, does it matter?

Of course it matters.

The president hates the United States and this is payback.

Elections have consequences - even historic ones.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
I have to believe you Copper. It isn't like the world is a free place open to all sorts of different ideas. For the most part major players like China and Russia are opposed to any real open Internet. Are we to had the hand the Internet over to them?

Just stupid.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
Transformational!
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
What's happening? What's changing?

The US government was the one who founded ICANN. For almost two decades, the US has contracted ICANN to manage the allocation of IP addresses and a bunch of domain-name-to-address translation functions. In theory, the US could have rescinded the contract with ICANN and give the contract to some other entity to perform the same functions. But the US never has, so ICANN has been performing those functions for close to two decades.

KEY POINT: the US government has had close to two decades to assess ICANN and work with ICANN to do those things, so we know very well how it works and how well it works.

What’s changing is that instead of relying on the "contract" mechanism to let ICANN perform those functions, the US government will just "skip" the contract mechanism and let ICANN does the same things it has been doing for close to two decades.

Is this move supported by private entities who are most dependent on the Internet? The answer is Yes. See this letter of support, for example: http://www.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/IANA-Letter.pdf ... Amazon, Facebook, Google, GoDaddy, Twitter, Yahoo ... all these Internet giants, all these marquee American companies are in support of the transition. From that, you should be able to tell that the American businesses are largely OK with this.

Does it matter? It doesn’t matter to the Internet’s day-to-day operation in the sense that, transition or not, the Internet would still be working the same way as it has been in close to two decades when the US government contracted the function to ICANN. ICANN will still be doing the same things, just no longer formerly under the framework of a "contract." It matters symbolically in the sense that "the Internet" can now be seen as independent, non-governmental, not under the control of any single government.

And one more thing ... ICANN as an organization is organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law and is headquartered in California. Unless it reorganizes and moves its HQ elsewhere, it’s still subject to the law of California. So, transition or not, it’s not like ICANN all of the sudden is free from constraint of American laws. So, relax ... the sky is not falling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Why "fix" something not broken?

Anyway:
Quote:
 
Ax:
And one more thing ... ICANN as an organization is organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law and is headquartered in California. Unless it reorganizes and moves its HQ elsewhere, it’s still subject to the law of California. So, transition or not, it’s not like ICANN all of the sudden is free from constraint of American laws. So, relax ... the sky is not falling.

Is there a guarantee that ICANN will remain in the U.S., "suject to the law..." as you state it?

Any reason ICANN could not move to some other country, where freedom of speech is not in the host country constitution?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Rainman
Oct 1 2016, 12:07 PM
Why "fix" something not broken?

Is there a guarantee that ICANN will remain in the U.S., "suject to the law..." as you state it?

Any reason ICANN could not move to some other country, where freedom of speech is not in the host country constitution?
No guarantee whatsoever.

ICANN holds no physical asset that would allow it to physically control the Internet. To the extent that it "governs" or "coordinates" various facets of the Internet, it does so only to the extent that those who hold the physical assets (e.g., server hardware, fiber optic cables, communications satellites) adhere to rules/guidelines and address allocations set by ICANN.

ICANN today resides in the US, yet China and Russia and North Korea has no problem restricting "speech" on the Internet in their respective territories. That should show you that ICANN today can neither guarantee nor deny "freedom of speech," nor will it be able to in the foreseeable future.

If the people in ICANN ever goes bat****-anti-American-crazy, Americans who owns the physical assets (think of all the switches and optical fibers and servers and cable lines and communications satellites owned/operated by AT&T and Verizon and Comcast and Sprint and Google and Amazon and Microsoft, etc.) can then give ICANN our collective middle finger and institute ICANN 2.0 to safeguard American interests. (This is not easy, but neither will it be easy for ICANN to pull up stakes and just leave the US.)

The real power rests with the people who own/operate the physical assets, not with the bureaucrats/technocrats working in ICANN.

Now I circle back to you first question: why "fix" what is not broken?

Because the USA promised the world back when it formed ICANN that it will one day make this transition. That's been the plan and the promise since ICANN's formation. Three Presidents and multiple sessions of Congress all know about this. The world took our word for it and developed their parts of the Internet on the back of this promise, honoring ICANN's rules/regulations and address allocations. No other country has developed a parallel/competing ICANN-like entity "just in case" we Americans decide to "take the Internet away" from them. We benefited from the rest of the world playing by ICANN's rule. Our technology and Internet companies sold tons and tons stuff and get access to consumers around the world via the global Internet that plays by the same rule.

Right now, practically every government of the free world is in favor of having a geopolitically independent ICANN. The only governments that want nationally controlled ICANN-like entities are the likes of China and Russia. We renege on our promise to the world and we give Russia and China an excuse to press their case for national government controlled ICANN-like entities.

Best to keep our word.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Thanks, Ax. I appreciate your expertise in this area.
From the articles I read, seems there is a chance (or desire) that this will end up in the U.N.

Just to refresh, the U.N. is a remarkable organization, where the best respective countries are represented where they have the most historical wisdom for input:

Quote:
 
UN General Assembly, Vice-President: China, Russia, Yemen

UN General Assembly Sixth Committee, (The Legal Committee), Rapporteur: Sudan

UN Human Rights Council, Members: Algeria, China, Congo, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Vietnam

UN Commission on the Status of Women Executive Bureau Vice Chairman: Egypt, Members:Belarus, Iran, Pakistan, Russian Federation

UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Executive Board: Burkina Faso, China, Ethiopia, Iran, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone

UN Counter-Terrorism Centre (UNCCT), Advisory Board Chair: Saudi Arabia

UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice: Belarus, DRC, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia

UN World Tourism Organization President, UNWTO Commission of the Middle East Vice-Chairman, Executive Council: Egypt; Vice-Chairman, Executive Council: Democratic Republic of the Congo; Executive Council: Iran; Saudi Arabia,
UNWTO African Commission Chairman: Zimbabwe; UNWTO African Commission Vice-Chairman:Côte d’Ivoire

UN Economic and Social Council Executive Bureau Vice-Chairman: Zimbabwe, Members: Afghanistan, Algeria, Burkina Faso, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Pakistan, Somalia, Uganda

UN Women Executive Board: China, Gabon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, United Arab Emirates

UN Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations Vice-Chair and Rapporteur: Azerbaijan, Vice-Chair : Turkey, Mauritania, Members: Burundi, China, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, Sudan

UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) Governing Council: China, Iran, Somalia Zimbabwe

UN Committee on Information, Executive Bureau Rapporteur: Iran, Members: Belarus, China, Kazakhstan, Libya, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria

UN Special Committee on Decolonization Executive Committee, Special Rapporteur: Syria

UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Executive Committee: Lebanon, Sudan
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Rainman
Oct 1 2016, 06:43 PM
Thanks, Ax. I appreciate your expertise in this area.
From the articles I read, seems there is a chance (or desire) that this will end up in the U.N.
Fear not, we will still pay 20-25% of the bill.

:leaving:
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Rainman
Oct 1 2016, 06:43 PM
From the articles I read, seems there is a chance (or desire) that this will end up in the U.N.
Yeah ... there are people in NATO countries who have read articles that suggest that there is a chance (or desire) that the US will start charging them for "protection" too. :shrug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply