Techdirt is off for Memorial Day. We'll be back with regularly scheduled posting tomorrow!Hide

Rep. Mary Bono Freaks Out Both About 'Gov't Takeover' AND 'Gov't Handover' Of The Internet

from the hypocrite-much? dept

On Friday afternoon, we wrote about the basic non-story about how NTIA (a part of the Commerce Department) will be relinquishing what little "control" it had over ICANN's IANA function. The US government already had little to no actual say over anything that ICANN was doing. The organization has been almost entirely independent from the beginning, and this move really just helps to clarify things, while actually taking some pressure off of ICANN so that other countries can't whine and complain (incorrectly) that the internet is "under US control."

Still, with headlines everywhere screaming about how the US is "giving up control" over the internet, you had to know that it was going to become some sort of political issue. And, indeed, a bunch of politicians are up in arms about this, with the most vocal (by far) critic of this move being Rep. Mary Bono, who tweeted angrily on Friday about how we should all be concerned about this and how we need to "keep the internet!"

Of course, since some of us have memories that go back more than a month or so, it's not that difficult to remember Rep. Mary Bono was also one of the most vehement politicians against net neutrality. In fact, just three years ago, in launching an attack on net neutrality, this very same Rep. Mary Bono was screaming about stopping the "government takeover of the internet." Sadly, that tweet is now deleted (gee... wonder why?).

Still, we're curious about all of this, and are hoping that Rep. Bono can answer this basic question. If we needed to "stop the government takeover of the internet" a few years ago... and yet, today, it's an incredibly important job for the government to "keep the internet," what, exactly, is Rep. Bono's position on US government control over the internet? Or is it just whatever bogus talking point she can use to fire up constituents into believing the government is about to do something bad?

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Oblate (profile), Mar 18th, 2014 @ 10:43am

    Indeterminate timeline

    There's an indeterminate timeline for this transition. The actual transition may occur far enough in the future for Rep. Bono to change her mind on this several more times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2014 @ 10:44am

    Rep Bono's policy = oppose anything Obama supports

    Rep Bono's policy is clearly opposing anything Obama supports.

    Obama supported Net Neutrality, so Bono had to oppose it as a 'government takeover' of the Internet without paying attention to what Obama was actually saying or researching what net neutrality was.

    Now Obama supports relinquishing what little role the US had over ICANN, so Rep Bono opposes it, because again, if Obama supports it then it must be bad! Nevermind that once again Rep Bono has no idea what Obama is actually doing, anything Obama does must be bad, simply because he's Obama!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2014 @ 10:52am

    Re: Rep Bono's policy = oppose anything Obama supports

    And this is why gerrymandering has to go. Because the parties have become so extreme that they're fighting over what the other is fighting over them fighting over. It's a political war with no end because neither side will concede to the other even though they have no idea what they're fighting over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), Mar 18th, 2014 @ 11:01am

    Re: Re: Rep Bono's policy = oppose anything Obama supports

    How will getting rid of gerrymandering change that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Mar 18th, 2014 @ 11:20am

    Bipolar disturb?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    zip, Mar 18th, 2014 @ 11:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Rep Bono's policy = oppose anything Obama supports

    Maybe A.C. erroneously thought that Mary Bono belongs to a racial minority and/or represents a purposefully-created racial-minority district -- neither of which would appear to be true.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2014 @ 11:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Rep Bono's policy = oppose anything Obama supports

    Districts are gerrymandered on more then just race.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2014 @ 11:50am

    Re: Re: Rep Bono's policy = oppose anything Obama supports

    Unfortunately, no matter how you draw the districts, it always will harm someone based on pure geography. Democrats tend to live close together in big cities, and gerrymandering is all about throwing a ton of your opposition into as few districts as possible to dilute their vote.

    The only way to truly abolish gerrymandering is to elect congress like Parliaments are elected, you don't vote for a candidate, you vote for a political party. The # of votes each party gets nationwide determines how many seats they get, regardless of where those votes are from.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2014 @ 1:18pm

    Re: Indeterminate timeline

    I wonder what her flip-flops are made of?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Scott (profile), Mar 18th, 2014 @ 1:22pm

    Former???

    Shouldn't it be "former" Rep. Bono? She lost the last election. She is no longer a member of Congress

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2014 @ 1:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Rep Bono's policy = oppose anything Obama supports

    The problem with voting for a party is that the party decides who get into the government. It becomes impossible to vote a person out of offices if they are high on a party list. Also the representatives are beholden to a party, not the electorate, as the party determines their chance of getting elected by their position on the party list.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    DV Henkel-Wallace (profile), Mar 18th, 2014 @ 1:59pm

    She is HOPING for the streisand effect

    She is suffering from the politicianís nighmare: being forgotten. As long as her name is out there thereís a chance she could be re-elected. So any press is better than no press at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2014 @ 2:53pm

    Mary should go back and read some history about ICANN and the IANA. This isn't an issue that just popped up. The IANA is already fairly well out of the US control before this announcement and it was planned to be independent in the future.

    If Mary really wants to drum up some support among her potential voters perhaps she should pick the right targets while hollering government take over. This is being pushed because of the Snowden releases showing that the US government can not be trusted. This is why the global internet community is up in arms over US control of the internet at this time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 18th, 2014 @ 10:26pm

    Consider the source...
    Mary Bono was the one who proposed that copyright should be "infinity minus one day"!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2014 @ 3:24am

    I think this has more do with do to with enforcement of any future SOPA law, than with net neturality.

    If the US gives up control of ICANN, if effectively neuters the ability to do things like seize domains and block content via DNS.

    IIRC, she was one of the sponsors of SOPA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Mar 19th, 2014 @ 5:18am

    Abuse it and lose it has always been a good policy in life from little kids to large Governments.

    So the NSA and DHS proves US Internet abuse should be taken away in favour of a multi-stakeholder model. Democracy and balance would go a long way to protect the Internet from Government overreach.

    Just a shame this is only a small start when ICANN itself should not be under the control of the US Department of Commerce. ICANN wanted independence years ago but the US Government said "no".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2014 @ 6:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Rep Bono's policy = oppose anything Obama supports

    Try the German system: You use two votes, one for a party, one for a local candidate. Half of the nimnal strength of parliament is elected directly, the rest get's filled from lists until you reach the relative strength you should have according to party votes. If a party get's more directly elected candidates then it should have at all according to the relativ votes, those people are added in addition to the nominal strength of the parliament, so usually you end up with a few more seats in total.

    Like any other democratic system I often feel the German one leaves much to be desired, but this two-vote-logic is one of the things it gets right if you ask me. Best of both worlds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 19th, 2014 @ 9:38am

    Look at who's NOT freaking out about this

    Pretty much everybody and every business that would be the most affected. Because they know that in practice this is not really a change at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    anonymous coward, Mar 20th, 2014 @ 10:34am

    Mike, the internet is "under US control" insofar as ICANN is HQed in California. Operating a website outside of USA jurisdiction that MPAA or USA in general deems inappropriate? No biggie. ICE will just seize your domain.

    You're right that this move is inconsequential, but I disagree with your dismissal of accusations that the internet is under US control.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    anonymous coward, Mar 20th, 2014 @ 10:41am

    Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 19th, 2014 @ 3:24am

    This isn't correct. If USA gives up ICANN control, lawsuits can still be filed against ICANN in California. That's also where MPAA is HQed.

    California courts would rubberstamp injunctions no problem, same with 9th circus courts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.