HideOnly 2 days left to get your copy of the CIA's declassified training game by backing CIA: Collect It All on Kickstarter »
HideOnly 2 days left to get your copy of the CIA's declassified training game by backing CIA: Collect It All on Kickstarter »

Ridiculously Stupid: 4 State Attorneys General File Totally Bogus Lawsuit Against Internet Transition

from the make-it-stop dept

Okay, this is really dumb. What is it about state attorneys general making totally bullshit claims? It seems to happen with fairly consistent frequency. The latest is that four state AGs (from Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada) have filed a lawsuit to stop the IANA transition. If you don't recall, we've written about this a bunch. A bunch of people are up in arms over something they don't seem to understand. The IANA transition is a good thing. It's not the US government handing over the internet to Russia and China as you may have heard. It's the Commerce Department severing an almost entirely symbolic link between it and a very specific internet governance capability concerning top level domains. And it's important to complete the transition because other countries (including Russia and China) keep pointing to this symbolic link as a reason for why they should have more say in internet governance. Getting rid of the link keeps the internet functioning as it has for decades -- and takes away a weapon from Russia and China. More importantly, going back on the transition now actually gives even more ammo to Russia and China, allowing them to point to unilateral actions by the US gov't to block a process that everyone had agreed upon earlier.

Anyway, to the actual lawsuit. It's dumb. It's really dumb. If you live in Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma or Nevada, you should be embarrassed for your Attorneys General. Elect better ones next time, please. First of all, they have no standing whatsoever to file this lawsuit. The IANA/top level domain system is not those states' property. They have no claim here other than "HEY LOOK! POLITICAL FOOTBALL THAT WE CAN GRANDSTAND OVER!" That does not give them standing. The best they can come up with for claiming standing is... uh... "hey, we have some websites." No, really.
Plaintiffs operate multiple websites, including those that use the .gov and .com generic top level domains, to conduct their business and communicate with their citizens.
Yeah. That's not enough to get standing here, buckos. Also, in filing a lawsuit they don't allege any actual harms. That's kind of a big no no when filing a lawsuit. Instead, they sorta maybe kinda speculate that maybe possibly there could (sorta, maybe) be some (possible, maybe, not really) harm in the theoretical future. Maybe.

Second, the entire crux of the lawsuit is that the authoritative root zone file and the internet domain name system itself are somehow "property" of the federal government, and that this transition is, in effect, the giving away of government property without an act of Congress, violating the Property Clause of the Constitution. Except, as we just discussed recently, the Government Accountability Office studied this issue earlier this month and came to the conclusion that "nope, it's not property." In case you missed it then:
It is unlikely that either the authoritative root zone file—the public “address book” for the top level of the Internet domain name system—or the Internet domain name system as a whole, is U.S. Government property under Article IV. We did not identify any Government-held copyrights, patents, licenses, or other traditional intellectual property interests in either the root zone file or the domain name system. It also is doubtful that either would be considered property under common law principles, because no entity appears to have a right to their exclusive possession or use.
Others have walked through some of the other charges and find them all totally lacking. A judge is set to review this request for an injunction later today, and you never know how any individual judge might rule. So it's entirely possible that this will muck up the timing of the transition, but long term, this filing is not just a joke, but it's an embarrassment and a waste of taxpayer money in those four states.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 3:33am

    Just a guess... do all of their names have a (R) after them when the media shows them?

    How many are up for reelection this cycle?

    The GOP, our leaders said something batshit... quick do something with it to show people how much we care. I wonder where all of this concern is in OK, how many probes into all of the earthquakes and action to work out compensation for the people whos homes are shaking apart because the state approved something & ignored bad things could happen?

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 3:44am

      Re:

      "Just a guess... do all of their names have a (R) after them when the media shows them?"

      I had to do a quick search, and - yes, they are all Republicans. Quelle surprise, although they don't all seem to be up re-election based on a quick Google search.

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

    • identicon
      Skeeter, 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:57am

      Re:

      For Sale - Grand Canyon

      That's what you are recommending, you do realize? The truth (not spoken by the article writer Mesnick) is that the four AG's have filed suit, that the President does NOT have authority to sell government property (aka control of internet domain names) to a PRIVATE CORPORATION (yep, we love and trust those Big Capitalist Corporations) without the express approval of Congress. THAT is what the four AGs are filing suit in Federal Court over.

      If this action is denied by the courts, then the President (and the President alone) will have the power (by precedent) to sell any government property, at any time, for any reason, with absolutely no checksum.

      Then again, why do you think they are putting millions of acres of land into National Parks? Building the bank account to spend from, once they can set this precedent and get Congress out of the way.

      We won't even talk about ICANN buying control of the internet, the possibility of a hostile world power then buying them in the future, etc. Yeah, we've never had a gripe about China or their Human Rights issues (or their great desire to filter and oversee its content).

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

    • icon
      DebbyS (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 9:24am

      Re: :"Just a guess..."

      I live in New Mexico, unfortunately situated between three of the four states in question. New Mexico's Attorney General is Hector Balderas (D), though our two-term governor is (R) and she can't run again, but despite low polling numbers she has aspirations to higher office, so who knows what she'll do in relation to the IANA.

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

  • icon
    PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 3:41am

    "Plaintiffs operate multiple websites, including those that use the .gov and .com generic top level domains, to conduct their business and communicate with their citizens."

    Apart from the .gov part, replace "citizens" with "customers" so do both I and the company I work for. As do most companies, and a huge number of private citizens in the world. They can't be silly enough to be saying that all those millions of people have a direct say in how the internet is run, surely?

    Sadly, I think the answer is yes, they are.

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

    • identicon
      Skeeter, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:06am

      Re:

      Wow, no one really gets the concept that this act SELLS U.S. Government control of internet domain names to a PRIVATE CORPORATION (that can be bought and sold, by interests worldwide), and that even now those who espouse making this sale are the very same ones who complain anytime the 'Great Chinese Firewall' is mentioned, saying it is against basic human rights. What do you think will happen, if ICANN owns domain name control, and China offers an exorbitant sum to buy them? ICANN would then be owned by the same guys who designed the idea of 'psychological control of a billion people via firewall controls'.

      We won't even discuss that feature where you then have a President able to buy-and-sell government assets without a checksum through Congress. Yeah, you'll love that when the interstates are all sold to private corporations and they turn them into toll plazas, while the FCC is sold to AT&T (who quickly deems airspace a 'chargeable commodity by the megabyte').

      You are about to give this over, and don't even realize it. Four AGs do, and are trying to stop it. Foolish? No, buying Mesnick's article is foolish. Why does he think privately Capitalizing the Domain Control a good thing? What's good about losing control about ownership? What right-minded IT Manager would sell out his router-control to a 3rd party? Doesn't make sense when you think about it locally, but this is just a bigger ball of string - and one you're only getting one side of the spin on.

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

      • icon
        Ninja (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:13am

        Re: Re:

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          what about that link essentially disproves what he said?

          the Government provides for ways of foreign agencies and interests to sit in on all sorts of things that affect other nations.

          Additionally, to just adhere to the claim that there is no Chinese interests even if there are no Chinese to be found is stupid as well. Why in the fuck would China have no interest? If they don't have any interest then they are even dumber than I think they are now!

          He might be on target for everything he said but the general idea is solid! Nations wheel and deal in all sorts of ways and behind closed doors. This is one of the Reasons that George Washington in his Farewell Address recommended a very limited level of interaction with Foreign states, because no matter how you slice the pie. The more a foreign state is involved with your economy the more POWER that foreign state has over YOU!

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

          • identicon
            Skeeter, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            While this 'elephant' eating contest(selling the internet controls to the world, one bite at a time) has been ongoing for at least 20 years, the comments here actually provide a lot of enlightenment, at least to me.

            I personally defend the four AGs not for who they are, but for the mere fact that this action is illegal and sets hard precedence for the President, alone, to conduct sale-of-government-assets to anyone he chooses, at anytime, without the checks-and-balances of Congress. This is FIRST AND FOREMOST.

            Secondly, with the U.S. (via DARPA) having built the internet (essentially), I see this as an American invention that became standardized (like the light bulb and the telephone), worldwide, but having been based and originally controlled in the U.S., it was akin to allowing 'philanthropic use' of our creation that suddenly the world sees as 'their right' to take, and you are seeing just that here, and now, with many Americans wishing to give it away as a sign of 'international good will'. The problem with 'international control' is 'international differences' that won't stop. Yes they want a say, yes they want a conglomerate of nations controlling it, but what no one is saying, is that with multiple nations 'controlling' anything, most often (as with the EU or the UN), a conglomeration becomes a frozen quagmire that becomes inept and frozen in its own bureaucracy.

            Lastly, my concern is for this going into 'laundered, trafficking mode' by first entering the 'private corporation' phase first. You see, one minute you hear advocates say 'we think this should be INTERNATIONALLY CONTROLLED', then they turn right around and say 'don't you realize, ICANN is a non-profit, private corporation' (seldom putting all that together for you into: ICANN is a non-profit, international, private corporation).

            Suddenly (if you are wise enough), you see that this is a private, international corporation where it is easy to hide many things. Private corporations that are not traded don't get issue an SEC-10k, they don't have to declare much actually, and just like the Federal Reserve Bank (also a 'private corporation'), you can't validate who really controls it. Non-profit doesn't equate to holy, it merely means they balance their books so as profit = 0 (Net Income after taxes is zero). FYI, most trucking companies in America today could actually qualify for 'non-profit' status, this doesn't mean that they have 'good will' towards men, just that they aren't making a profit for the fiscal year.

            All this said, in my old business mind, there is no advantage to 'sell this' (rid yourself of it, give it away, whatever term you feel cozy with) control to an external interest for. So why do so many think this is the right way to go? They aren't saying, or if they do, it sounds loopy and they can't justify what they are saying, as there are no precedents in anything comparative that makes sense.

            At no other time have we been so 'philanthropic' of something we own, for no reason, with no gain, where the receiver cannot show a gain either, by acquiring it. That you have a majority on the side waving flags and offering fanfare for this ICANN acquisition to happen is sheer fantasy, and yet it is happening. Again, I ask 'WHY', and hear crickets of logic saying 'we can't answer you, but we did stay at the Cozy Inn last night, and that makes us correct and any that dare voice dissent shall instantly be labeled fools'.

            I've seen spin, and I've seen credibility assassination, but this is pure pink rainbows without logic to explain it. In a nutshell, its quite simple - something else is underpinning why this is so damn important, and not one who knows is saying it. The rest are sheep in the field with big team pennants proudly supporting their fellow sheep on a topic they don't understand.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:38am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Liked the post.

              I am definitely concerned as to why Mike has is so for letting the IANA go while calling a Contract an Imaginary thing.

              As for the comment about no one likely finding any government authority on the subject I sure found it pretty fast. I am thinking they are intentionally "not seeing" things to massage something. My opinion is that the Globalist are up to something... well they are always up to something.

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

              • icon
                Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 9:41am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I am definitely concerned as to why Mike has is so for letting the IANA go while calling a Contract an Imaginary thing.

                Uh, when did I call the contract imaginary? I never did. The contract exists. But what does that have to do with anything?

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

            • icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 9:40am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Suddenly (if you are wise enough), you see that this is a private, international corporation where it is easy to hide many things. Private corporations that are not traded don't get issue an SEC-10k, they don't have to declare much actually, and just like the Federal Reserve Bank (also a 'private corporation'), you can't validate who really controls it. Non-profit doesn't equate to holy, it merely means they balance their books so as profit = 0 (Net Income after taxes is zero). FYI, most trucking companies in America today could actually qualify for 'non-profit' status, this doesn't mean that they have 'good will' towards men, just that they aren't making a profit for the fiscal year.

              Awesome. I'll add non-profit to the list of things (like IANA, ICANN, internet governance, property, and the like) that you don't understand at all, but have no problem spouting off ignorantly about.

              Educate yourself. Otherwise you look really, really dumb.

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:39am

        Re: Re:

        "Wow, no one really gets the concept that this act SELLS U.S. Government control of internet domain names to a PRIVATE CORPORATION"

        That's not what's happening so, we're golden.

        "Four AGs do, and are trying to stop it"

        Or, the other AGs in the country understand the issue and don't wish to use it as a grandstanding gesture in an election year, unlike the ignoramuses who are doing that?

        "(who quickly deems airspace a 'chargeable commodity by the megabyte')."

        I think the FAA would have something to say about that.

        "Mesnick's article is foolish"

        You really want to check the name before you keep misspelling it. It's embarrassing since it's at the top of the page you're writing on. But, it speaks volumes about your attention to facts.

        "Doesn't make sense when you think about it locally"

        Well, since this is not a local issue, luckily the people who understand it are talking.

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

  • identicon
    Digitari, 30 Sep 2016 @ 5:29am

    Hmmmm

    Didn't the UN just pass a resolution that the USA has to pay black reparations for slavery?

    (this may be the root cause of the fear)

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

  • identicon
    John Cressman, 30 Sep 2016 @ 5:32am

    Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

    What's with the psycho left wing slant of these internet transition posts.

    Do you not read your own site?

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160708/06390434915/china-decrees-that-all-news-websites-must-fun nel-through-government-approval.shtml

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151006/10194832450/china-lo oks-to-quell-dissent-with-citizen-scores-number-that-tracks-purchases-opinions-social-circles.shtml

    A nd I could go on and use examples about other countries - like Thailand - that are HEAVY web censors.

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140523/05313527343/thailand-coup-leaders-insist-their-or ders-to-censor-internet-are-not-actually-censorship.shtml

    And you seem to be pro turn over the internet to a group - which China will no doubt be part of and hold great influence over.

    Seriously? Are you stupid or insane... or both?

    I am for ANYONE who tries to stop this. As I've said before, the US has it's issues but it's still the BEST for allowing free speech. I know that's not saying alot, but compared to other countries we are leagues better.

    Stop drinking kool aid and start reading your own site!

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 5:59am

      Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

      "Do you not read your own site?"

      Yes, they do. Indeed, the article has this near the start:

      "If you don't recall, we've written about this a bunch. A bunch of people are up in arms over something they don't seem to understand. The IANA transition is a good thing. It's not the US government handing over the internet to Russia and China as you may have heard."

      Your rant doesn't address or refute that point, but does spend a lot of time talking about issues that are irrelevant if that claim is true. It's irrelevant what China is doing on its own internet connections if they are not being given control, which the author states quite clearly is false. You should either prove him wrong, or stop panicking over things that don't matter.

      Usually, whenever I see someone immediately whining about "leftist" or "left wing", I presume that what's lacking is ignorant fear-mongering and I'm right to be reading and agreeing with the source at hand. Your comment does nothing to dispel that assumption.

      Perhaps you need to stop drinking whatever it is you're drinking, or adjust your debate tactics to include facts and evidence rather than dismissing anything you disagree with as "left wing".

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:09am

      Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

      Your fascist right-wing politics are exceeded only by your stunning ignorance. Speaking as one of the people who was around BEFORE the DNS was set up, and who has had a small role in building what you, with your primitive mind, call the "Internet", you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. You. Are. A. Moron.

      Happily for you, you're not alone: these four A.G.'s are right there with you. It's a wonder that anyone of you can eat with a fork without perforating your faces.

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

    • identicon
      Tony H, 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:26am

      Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post? - What about the Author : -(

      You have to wonder about the author of this article. Why would be in favor and lack knowledge of such a big event and yet say he's in the industry. - NOT SMART - Exactly as you said - it's all right there on their own website in their own words to see, that - YES, YOU WILL BE CENSORED BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:47am

      Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

      What's with the psycho left wing slant of these internet transition posts.


      That's all in your mind because you don't understand the facts, you think that what we're writing is "left wing." It's not left wing. It's not right wing. It's just the truth.

      But if you're so brainwashed, how about reading the following from some "right wing" folks, who all agree with me:

      The Cato institute is not exactly left wing, right?

      http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/julian-sanchez-discusses-icann-wwls-thin k-tank-w-garland-robinette

      Mercatus Center is famously right wing:

      https://www.mercatus.org/expert_commentary/how-russia-and-un-are-actually-planning-take-over-in ternet

      Niskanen Center (sort of a spin off of Cato):

      http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/284443-us-should-relinquish-control-of-internet

      R Street (right wing think tank):

      http://www.rstreet.org/2016/09/13/domain-name-not-resolved-breaking-down-the-debate-over-the-i cann-transition/

      So, fuck off with the bogus partisanship. This is not a left wing or right wing issue.

      I so hate election season, which encourages people to turn any story into a partisan one. This isn't a partisan issue at all, other than the fact that a SMALL group of people on one side of the partisan line are stupidly trying to block this, while plenty of actual knowledgeable people on BOTH sides of the partisan line, recognize why it should move forward.

      A nd I could go on and use examples about other countries - like Thailand - that are HEAVY web censors.


      Yes, and none of that has anything to do with the IANA transfer.

      And you seem to be pro turn over the internet to a group - which China will no doubt be part of and hold great influence over.

      Did you not read the post? Because if you state what you just stated, you're wrong. You are ignorant.

      Seriously? Are you stupid or insane... or both?


      You might want to hold that question up in a mirror. I actually understand the issues here. You do not.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:08am

        Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

        It looks like you are not playing with a full deck either.

        The DOC is a government agency and IT manages the contract for IANA to have power. That means it is OWNED by the US Government and therefore requires Congressional approval. And since the Internet is a defacto Interstate & International subject that makes it a BIG Federal Issue, one that the Government cannot LEGALLY avoid or give away to a private entity or allow it to leave it's domain either so Congressional Approval may not be Constitutionally possible, just like the Creation of the Federal Reserve.

        Had another country created the Internet, you could have some points but you don't! America has been shitting on the Constitution for so long most of everyone including you just fucking ignore it... well UNTIL it serves your fucking purposes of course!

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

        • icon
          Ryunosuke (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:20am

          Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

          a few important points to point out here.

          1)The world does NOT consist of ONLY the USA, Nor does it revolve around us like we think it does a lot of times. There are other people in the world too.

          2) if you have read ANY post on the subject, you would know that the USGovt is in charge of the IANA IN NAME ONLY so... as has been pointed out Numerous times, severing that link is for the betterment of EVERYONE.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

            No, the USA is not in charge in name only.

            That is where you and Mike are dead fucking wrong. There is a Government Contract for the IANA's powers you need to go and read up on its history.

            Like most others, flat uninformed!

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

            • icon
              Ryunosuke (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:45am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

              Then enlighten us as to what that contract entails?

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:07am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

                http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order

                Have you heard of google? Should not be hard to find. Let also you do another solid and provide you a snippet of information as well.

                The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) currently performs the IANA functions, on behalf of the United States Government, through a contract with NTIA.

                Didja hapin to notice the part where it sez "ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT?"

                Ima thinking a whole lot-o-you fellers are dumber than a bakwuds redneck for missing that wun!

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

                • icon
                  Ryunosuke (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 9:11am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

                  so by your definition, you people want to cancel said contract and revert control BACK to the US government, from a private entity. THAT makes you not only a leftist, but FULL ON COMMUNIST (See:Venezuela, USSR).

                  Aside from that, that is a VERY dangerous move, as the USGovt cannot be trusted with ANYTHING having to do with the internet, as it is a) incapable to do due to resources, or more importantly technical reasons. and b) cannot be impartial when administering the internet. (What happens when a war breaks out between the US and another state?)

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

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 9:45am

          Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

          It looks like you are not playing with a full deck either.


          Because I pointed out many examples of knowledgeable people explaining why you're wrong that this is a "psycho left wing" story? Or are you claiming that the Cato Institute is a psycho left wing organization too? Mercatus also? I mean, really...

          The DOC is a government agency and IT manages the contract for IANA to have power. That means it is OWNED by the US Government and therefore requires Congressional approval

          This is false. There is a contract, but the DOC has every right to transition the authority away from itself. There is no property interest in the function itself, as has been noted by the GAO. You're simply wrong.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 4:59am

        Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

        As CloudFare is no longer screwing up contact with this site, I'll try again.

        That's all in your mind because you don't understand the facts, you think that what we're writing is "left wing." It's not left wing. It's not right wing. It's just the truth.
        Bad choice of word there. You should have used the word facts. Once you start declaring that you write the truth, you open yourself up to all sorts of failure.

        Stick to the facts and your opinions or viewpoints and leave the truth to others more suited to it, such as religious and philosophical debates. In today's world, what is the truth is considered by many to be quite relative.

        So please, please, do not describe yourselves as writing about the truth.

        You might want to hold that question up in a mirror. I actually understand the issues here. You do not.
        A small correction for you, you have some understanding of the issues here, but there is no way you have complete understanding of the issues here, so don't declare that you have. You just make yourself out as much a fool as all the various fools we have as politicians and leaders around the place.

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

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:09am

      Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

      Dude, it's transitioning towards a goddamn PRIVATE corporation. And one that can, in fact, be neutral. https://www.icann.org/policy#staff

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

    • icon
      Ryunosuke (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:10am

      Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

      do you not know how the internet ACTUALLY works? If not, then kindly STFU. People like you, who have no idea how the internet really works (or anything really), Should not have a say how what to do with it.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:07am

        Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

        This. A thousand times this. If you don't understand what IANA does, if you don't understand what DNS is and why it exists, if you don't comprehend what root servers are, the kindly SHUT THE HELL UP. You are not worthy of the privilege of speaking. You are ignorant. You are uninformed. You should be silent while those who are superior to you discuss matters far beyond your pitifully feeble comprehension.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 11:08am

          Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

          This is why we can not have nice things .... people ranting that they know what is best for everyone else while demonstrating complete intolerance of anything outside their comprehension while suggesting such silliness is the result of being stupid and everyone who disagrees should just shut up.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 12:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?

            Yes, if you're stupid and ignorant, you SHOULD shut up.

            You may not be able to fix the stupid part, but you can certainly fix the ignorant part: LEARN. Start by learning from those of us who've been dealing with this stuff for decades and know far more about it than you are ever going to know. Sit down. Shut up. Listen. And try, within the limits of your mind, to comprehend.

            I grow tired of listening to the clueless rants of people who know nothing of the history, the politics, the economics, and most importantly, the technical issues in play here. You add nothing to the conversation but noise, and yes, you deserve to be insulted and abused until you can do better.

            Because I'm a generous person and look down on you with a mixture of contempt and pity, I'll be nice enough to give you a place to start. Go look up the ARPAnet hosts.txt file and try to understand why we stopped using it. Understand in detail. Understand in depth. Then go read RFC 882 and RFC 883 in their entirety.

            If you're not willing to take these rudimentary steps to educate yourself, then please do the world a favor: be silent.

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

  • identicon
    Digitari, 30 Sep 2016 @ 5:34am

    and Also

    I just read this, interesting.


    U.N news agency scrubs tweet calling on Americans abroad to 'end Trump'

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/un-news-agency-scrubs-tweet-calling-on-foreign-citizens-to-end -trump-228934#ixzz4Lk41NRwA

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

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 5:58am

    Early morning grammar naziing.

    ...they sorta maybe kinda speculate that maybe possibly their could (sorta, maybe) be some (possible, maybe, not really) harm in the theoretical future. Maybe.

    This reads better as there could (positional there rather than possessive their). Even if talking about their harm that could come in the possible maybe future.

    My brain wants to write it ...maybe there could possibly (sorta, maybe) be some (...) harm... but that's because I'm a dork.

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

  • icon
    Vidiot (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:26am

    One word: Standing. As in, none.

    Who cares what four pea-brained idiots think of a standards organization transition? And who will listen?

    Next legal action: "Four State AG's Sue El Niño for Forest Fire Losses"

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:34am

    Attorneys, good ones, typically seek input from experts in the field when preparing for court. Those that do not usually end up on the losing side. When these same lawyers become politicians, they some how forget all their best practices and simply wing it, hoping some of their bullshit sticks to the wall.

    wtf?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:48am

      Re:

      Attorneys General do not have the time available to consult experts, as almost all their time is spent using their position as a springboard to getting a real political office, like state governor or into the senate..

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

  • icon
    SirWired (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:40am

    I think the ICANN transition is bad, but for different reasons

    I'm not worried about the Big, Bad, Reds taking over the internet, but certainly ICANN itself is problem free.

    It's a shame that exactly the wrong tack was taken trying to stop the transition, because ICANN has real, genuine, problems relating to accountability, and they routinely flout their own accountability measures, and seek to have the ones they have in place watered down.

    Not turning over the contract until those problems were fixed would have been a good idea, but there's no hope for that now, since Ted Cruz wanted to make a complete fool of himself.

    (What's the big rush, anyway? The US Govt. has not interfered with ICANN/IANA one bit over the years. Who cares if China and Russia don't like the US holding the contract? If they don't like it, they can make their own damn internet, which is more-or-less what they'd prefer anyway.)

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

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:08am

      Re: I think the ICANN transition is bad, but for different reasons

      That's what we are trying to prevent here, the balkanization of the net. It's not good for anybody. Also: https://www.icann.org/policy#staff

      ICANN may have issues but there are plenty of representation for other stakeholders while keeping it autonomous.

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

    • icon
      TKnarr (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 11:22am

      Re: I think the ICANN transition is bad, but for different reasons

      Funny thing is, ICANN currently controls IANA. They got control of it back in '98 when Jon Postel (the guy who literally was IANA) died. The transition here is from IANA as a part of ICANN to IANA as an independent entity with a defined charter and governance rules.

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

  • identicon
    Skeeter, 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:49am

    Mesnick Missing the Point

    Article Writer Mesnick is missing the point, or if aware, using subterfuge to not address all those relevant points he happened to 'overlook'.

    Currently, the Dept of Commerce has control of the internet, in other words, the U.S. Federal Government. He advocates what most judges and AGs are supportive of, that is the SALE of Internet Domain Control from U.S. Government ownership and control to ICANN, a private CORPORATION (wow, you techdirt guys can't decide if you're against Capitalism or for it - how about a Wind Sock or something?).

    So, if unchallenged, ICANN gets control of domain names (and a few other jewels), and as a private corporation, SOMEONE (that you may or may not know who owns it, kinda like the Federal Reserve Bank) controls the world domains. Not really the internet? Well, if you're CHINA and want to own .mil, I guess it's all cool if you have gold for money, and the U.S. has debt for money. What happens when just anyone can buy .gov, .mil, etc. domain names? What happens when suddenly no one can comment on 'CHINA' if in .us ? You can't even offer up who will own ICANN in a year.

    Why are you so supportive of this? You say this is foolish-rubbish, that four stupid AG's are countering ICANN on this 'buy out', but the actual lawsuit is why you can't buy the Grand Canyon from the government. It is being hailed as an 'illegal sale of a keystone of national security', which is in fact, illegal for ANYTHING to be sold by the Federal Government without the approval of Congress (else, the President would have most-likely sold a few interstates by now to pay for his wardrobe, or something).

    No, it's a very valid complaint the AG's have, and sadly, seem to be the only ones voicing this problem of a Presidential 'Order' that is highly illegal, to sell a solid tech-invention of predominantly U.S. concept to a PRIVATE CORPORATION, for purposes not fully defined other than to 'get it off the back of the U.S. Government'. Heads up, it's not sellable popaganda, and those cheering it now will wish they could complain about it later when a foreign or unknown interest has control of the internet domains, able to filter at will who-gets-to-say-what, and from what domain name.

    Lots of foolishness in this article, either that, or obviously there's something Mesnick isn't really telling us about why such a sale would be 'good for the internet', that not one other person has pointed out so far, in over 20-years of trying (and failing) to make this happen.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:01am

      Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

      I... just... can't... [head explodes]

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

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:05am

      Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

      https://www.icann.org/policy#staff

      It's a private corporation with many stake holders (read countries)represented in their ranks whereas the US has the US to represent everybody. The change is welcome and people like you spreading vitriol are just making it take longer.

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

      • identicon
        Skeeter, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:14am

        Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

        The UN is a conglomeration of 190+ nations.

        How effective was that UN effort to stop the genocide in Darfur? I missed that amazing UN effort to stop war in Iraq, Syria, etc.

        You see, blowing off steam about how 'it is so much wiser to have a large body of various interests manage a critical function' looks a lot like Darfur. Paralyzation without recourse is just as likely as action with effect.

        You can roll your eyes all you want to - until you can show me how the EU works, or Brexit hurt, or the UN helps (you must have missed that part about absolute corruption there, came out in recent news stories), you will not sell all of us on the spin.

        YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY WHY SELLING CONTROL IS BETTER THAN KEEPING IT!

        You have utterly failed to address why this violation of Federal Law (President side-stepping Congressional Approval of government assets) is a 'good thing'.

        And, once again, I iterate, 'If we've done the bulk of the work in the U.S. to create the Internet, and we have proven we are fair in controlling the internet domains as a government function, then why is selling to a private corporation advantageous?'

        If you think having a Federal Reserve Bank is better than conducting monetary work through your own Treasury, you do not know as much as your eye-rolling behavior suggests.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:11am

      Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

      Currently, the Dept of Commerce has control of the internet, in other words, the U.S. Federal Government.

      No, it doesn't. It has symbolic oversight over a small function of internet governance. That's it.

      He advocates what most judges and AGs are supportive of, that is the SALE of Internet Domain Control from U.S. Government ownership and control to ICANN, a private CORPORATION

      This isn't about selling anything. And ICANN is a nonprofit organization. "A private corporation" implies, falsely, that it's a for profit entity with share holders.

      So, if unchallenged, ICANN gets control of domain names (and a few other jewels), and as a private corporation, SOMEONE (that you may or may not know who owns it, kinda like the Federal Reserve Bank) controls the world domains. Not really the internet? Well, if you're CHINA and want to own .mil, I guess it's all cool if you have gold for money, and the U.S. has debt for money. What happens when just anyone can buy .gov, .mil, etc. domain names? What happens when suddenly no one can comment on 'CHINA' if in .us ? You can't even offer up who will own ICANN in a year.

      Um. You do realize that ICANN already controlled all that stuff and has for many, many years. This change changes nothing. China can't just walk in and buy ICANN. It's nonprofit entity, not a for profit one where someone can waltz in and buy it.

      Why are you so supportive of this? You say this is foolish-rubbish, that four stupid AG's are countering ICANN on this 'buy out', but the actual lawsuit is why you can't buy the Grand Canyon from the government.

      Again, this was already debunked by the Government Accountability Office. There is no ownership here. The Commerce Dept has *oversight* not *ownership* of a small part of internet governance. That's it. It's transfering that oversight. That's all. No property is changing hands. This has nothing to do with the Grand Canyon.

      to sell a solid tech-invention of predominantly U.S. concept to a PRIVATE CORPORATION, for purposes not fully defined other than to 'get it off the back of the U.S. Government'.

      Almost everything in that sentence is false. It's transfering oversight away from Commerce to ICANN, a non profit that has been around for many years. And if you think that the purpose hasn't been fully defined, you haven't paid attention to the past 2.5 years. You're simply wrong. There were detailed explanations for why this is happening. That you are unaware of them speaks more to your ignorance than anything else.

      Lots of foolishness in this article, either that, or obviously there's something Mesnick isn't really telling us about why such a sale would be 'good for the internet', that not one other person has pointed out so far, in over 20-years of trying (and failing) to make this happen.

      Uh, I did explain it, in great detail, many times. As have many others.

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

      • identicon
        Skeeter, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:27am

        Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

        The warning has been 20-years in the making. Much like the National Debt, those of 'conservative' mind have made their points in this. Four AG's hold out a sliver of hope to stop this, and the mobs-with-torches are determined to make this happen.

        I guess it will be a great 'oops, we didn't see that coming' moment in the future. If it works without incident, it will be hailed as an 'Obama Legacy', and if it fails, due to the timing right at the moment of elections, it will be passed-on to the next President as 'their utter failure'.

        It sets very bad precedents in terms of unchecked government asset sales, it is without comparable equivalent - at no time has the U.S. surrendered this level of control over anything they originally had it in, and in the end, the question will be 'did your position just establish a precedent for the future sale of the Grand Canyon to private interests and the worldwide tyrannical control of the internet domains to forces with 'Great Firewall of China' mentality, or have you merely played 'pass-the-buck' and taken this responsibility off of the U.S. Government?

        Time will only tell, but I know one thing - if keeping it is nothing more than status quo, and selling it with benign results is just more of the 'status quo', and there is a 1-in-3 chance of loss of internet freedom to tyrannical events (and I'm talking downstream, later, AFTER ICANN owns it all), then tell me one thing:

        What is being gained by this sale-transfer, that is so beneficial that you are this passionate about it?

        As for the inference that non-profit equates to 'good for all mankind', you probably need to look up what non-profit really means, it means the balance sheet is balanced without gains, or profits, it doesn't mean that it does good, or that it was ordained by some god, it means that its balance sheet is balanced without profit - nothing more.

        As I've said a couple of times already, 'the U.N. is non-profit', how do you feel about moving to Darfur, Syria or Iraq right now? Funny, I thought you were implying that non-profit = saintly, when in reality, it just means a bunch of people making money pretending to be doing good for mankind. My error.

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

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 9:52am

          Re: Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

          It sets very bad precedents in terms of unchecked government asset sales

          No, it doesn't. Because no asset is being sold.

          it is without comparable equivalent - at no time has the U.S. surrendered this level of control over anything they originally had it in

          No, it doesn't. Do you even understand what the IANA function is and what kind of "control" the US gov't actually has over it? Because it certainly doesn't seem like it.

          the worldwide tyrannical control of the internet domains to forces with 'Great Firewall of China' mentality, or have you merely played 'pass-the-buck' and taken this responsibility off of the U.S. Government?

          Again, you should learn something before you continue to spout pure ignorance.

          What is being gained by this sale-transfer, that is so beneficial that you are this passionate about it?


          As I've explained MULTIPLE TIMES and which you apparently refuse to read or understand, China and Russia *have* been trying to gain control over more internet governance, using the UN (via the ITU). What this transfer does is vastly undermine that process, and make sure that the ICANN multistakeholder process remains in place. That takes away power from ALL governments. The ITU setup would be gov't controlled internet. With the ICANN multistakeholder process, it allows a variety of interests, mainly *actual internet engineers who understand this stuff* to have a strong say in keeping the internet open.

          You don't seem to know the first thing about internet governance. So you might want to educate yourself before sounding even stupider.

          As for the inference that non-profit equates to 'good for all mankind', you probably need to look up what non-profit really means, it means the balance sheet is balanced without gains, or profits, it doesn't mean that it does good, or that it was ordained by some god, it means that its balance sheet is balanced without profit - nothing more.

          Again, that is not what non-profit means at all. You really ought to educate yourself.

          As I've said a couple of times already, 'the U.N. is non-profit', how do you feel about moving to Darfur, Syria or Iraq right now? Funny, I thought you were implying that non-profit = saintly, when in reality, it just means a bunch of people making money pretending to be doing good for mankind. My error.

          The UN is not a nonprofit organization. You really ought to learn a little about what you're spouting off about.

          Also, if you're so scared of the UN, then you SHOULD SUPPORT THIS TRANSITION because it STOPS the attempt to have the UN control internet governance.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2016 @ 1:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

          nothing is being sold you mong

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:33am

      Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

      You know, when you can't be bothered to check the spelling of the name of the person you're trying to complain about/to, it doesn't make people think the rest of your post will be accurate in any way.

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

      • identicon
        Skeeter, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:48am

        Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

        The counter-point hasn't been listening for 20-years, I don't expect to really make a significant impact this morning to effect world history PaulT (wow, never seen a name that was spelled like that, either).

        Then again, I'm sure you've never misspelled a name, either. I acquiesce to your perfectness, though do not aspire to it. I find I do make mistakes, but really try to see forward enough to not make blatantly obvious ones that will actually matter to me in the future. Misspelling Masnick's name will not change the world. Have you given the IANA-ICANN issue this much reflection even, then you would have seen a number of major problems that have not been resolved in discussion - and instead of address them, ,you choose to ignore them.

        Much like I ignored the spelling of his name, between sleepy viewpoint and lack of coffee, I suppose.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:58am

          Re: Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

          "(wow, never seen a name that was spelled like that, either)."

          That's because it's not a name, it's a nickname for use on the internet. I presume Skeeter isn't the name you were born with either (though you are as annoying as one).

          Mike Masnick, however, uses his full given name so if you're going to whine about him it would be courteous to get that small fact correct.

          "Have you given the IANA-ICANN issue this much reflection even"

          Yes, and I think your paranoid lunatic rantings do not address the version I've seen in this reality. Perhaps instead of making yourself look foolish, you could explain why the scenarios you're so afraid of are likely, because the evidence doesn't support them.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:02am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

            Mike Masnick, however, uses his full given name so if you're going to whine about him it would be courteous to get that small fact correct.

            I agree here, people need to respect others names. Do not butcher them and avoid making fun of their names as well. It is juvenile to do so. There are plenty of other ways to disparage people if you have to get belligerent about things.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 1:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

          The irony of you shouting your ignorance of how internet naming works and repeatedly misspelling the authors name is delicious.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 9:54am

      Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

      Aside from your general babbling nonsense that shows you are completely unqualified to have an opinion on this matter...you can't even be bothered to spell the author's name correctly.

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

    • icon
      Adrian Cochrane (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 10:43am

      Re: Mesnick Missing the Point

      Well, this someone already controls IP-address allocation.

      Sure it's right to not trust whoever controls the allocation of domains, be it government, non-profit, or (even more) for-profit, and maybe if the Internet was built using modern computer science we won't be having this discussion.

      But that said IANA, not the US government, always has been the ones handing out domain names and they've been doing a great job at it. They remain in the background and the Internet just seems to work.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:52am

    Information.

    What I hate about all articles... the missing information.

    -Darpa was the original manager of DNS & IANA responsibilities.
    -Bill Clinton administration approved to transfer control from DARPA to private sector and DOC recommended a NEW private non-profit to administer it.
    -DOC holds the contract, and DOC is an agency created by the government.

    And since the US Constitution NEVER gave Congress the power to GIVE agencies rule/law making power, the retarded repukes from the 4 states actually DO have a point.

    Congress DOES have to approve of the transition. Just because the citizens "as usual" are ignorant of things and have allowed the US Government to run rampant means jack shit.

    Additionally, TD is sure all hot and bothered over this subject. I am beginning to think TD has some sort of connection to this and cannot be objective about this.

    Why is it so bad for our politicians to cause a problem over this transition but NOT bad for the politicians from around the world to cause a problem over it? According to the history, The American Government serves out the stewardship of the IANA through a contract for management which means the US does in Fucking FACT OWN IT! Additionally, the fact that it was given to a PRIVATE entity profit or not is another corruption.

    One thing I do agree with TD on is that this does need the light of day shown upon it, but there is no justification for bashing people that want to keep it under American control.

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

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:06am

      Re: Information.

      It shouldn't be under American control. That's the issue. And yo0u are confused, the move is symbolic, the US doesn't own it.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:46am

        Re: Re: Information.

        why can't you go and read history? IANA is essentially a Contract with the DOC to grant power to manage this. The DOC is a Government Agency. IANA was originally a DARPA project that the Clintoon Administration allowed to get into private hands.

        As things stand the Internet is US Owned.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:43am

      Re: Information.

      "there is no justification for bashing people that want to keep it under American control"

      There's no justification for a truly international resource utilised by every nation on the planet to be under American control, either. Certainly not one that's ever been stated without some sort of fiction attached, anyway.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:54am

        Re: Re: Information.

        There is justification if there is concern that the other nations will use it to stifle or control economies. That is certainly not a fiction either. That being said, I am also not making the claim that America has done a good job either. Like many other things of late, America does only one thing... fuck shit up!

        If this were to go international, then it has to be formulated under treaty or as the turds say... approved by Congress. Of course anything congress does these days is of no comfort because they are one of the worst and most ignored corruptions in existence.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:00am

          Re: Re: Re: Information.

          "There is justification if there is concern that the other nations will use it to stifle or control economies."

          What about the rest of the world who fear that the US will do the same? Do their concerns not count?

          "Like many other things of late, America does only one thing... fuck shit up!"

          All the more reason for the internet to not be in their control then.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:43am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Information.

            Their concerns are theirs not mine. And America is already fucking around with everyone economies already and NO I do not like it, but I cannot get enough fellow citizens to care otherwise.

            And whether I like America's fucking shit up or not, it is still no justification for this transition. If the US wants to offer up the Contract to a PUBLIC or even an INTERNATIONAL agency that is fine, but the Contract MUST be made with the US Government and of course approved by Congress. In any case the Government should never have allowed any private entity to manage jack and fucking shit!

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

      • identicon
        Skeeter, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:58am

        Re: Re: Information.

        That's funny, considering the world is on the Petro-Dollar, that you would say such a blatantly incorrect thing, PaulT.

        I rescind my admiration of your absolute perfection. Me thinks you're just in this for the 'internationalism' of it all, or possibly the 'anti-Americanism' of it.

        I know that all the cliches (from 'Great Firewall of China' and 'North Korean Blackout' to just general 'locally-nepotic favoritism) won't change your viewpoint; but to hear someone profess 'internationalism' as their 'main driving reason' makes me instantly envision 190+ nations' representatives sitting in a big round room, and appointing the most-heinous offenders to a committee on human rights, and thinking that they have good intent and good will in their hearts, as media reports of their absolute sociopathic greed airs worldwide.

        Sorry PaulT, just can't get on board with internationalism with you. Personally, I was always taught 'if you can't do it right in a small scale, whatever in your right mind makes you think you can take it to a larger scale and perfect what you couldn't do right locally first?'

        Obviously, it takes a village to raise an unrealist.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:02am

          Re: Re: Re: Information.

          So, still ranting about nonsense and no facts to furnish the discussion with? Hey, at least when you turned your schizo raving to me, you managed to address me correctly.

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

          • identicon
            Skeeter, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Information.

            When you can't be correct, be abrasive, right PaulT?

            You might want to reload your comments, as several others have pointed out TD's own articles that also highlight the various questions over this IANA-ICANN transition you espouse is so good.

            That China has directly said they fully intend to continue filtering with their Firewall is rather succinct.

            As for your continued addressment of valid points with non-facts (you really haven't addressed a single point made, other than I misspelled Masnick's name), you can't give us one functioning example of a multi-national entity doing something better at regulating a world function, that a single nation couldn't do better.

            I offer the example, that if I am a national citizen, would I rather have the U.N. defend me, or as an American citizen, have solely the U.S. government or military defend me? I would opt for the later.

            I ask you, which do you have more personal faith in to protect your rights, the U.N., the E.U., or your individual nation? Now, being as I can easily guess your answer (if you have any sense), why would you want an international organization defend the internet structure?

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

            • icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 10:03am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Information.

              That China has directly said they fully intend to continue filtering with their Firewall is rather succinct.


              You keep bringing this up as if it has anything at all to do with the IANA transition. It does not.

              you can't give us one functioning example of a multi-national entity doing something better at regulating a world function, that a single nation couldn't do better.

              Here's the problem. You seem to think that ICANN is a "multi-national entity." Again, ICANN has a multi-stakeholder process that means nations actually have LESS control, because non-nation entities are also part of the process. This is why the ICANN/IANA process includes actual engineers, who are protecting *against* gov't interference in these matters.

              If you want gov't interference away from the internet, you should support the transfer.

              I ask you, which do you have more personal faith in to protect your rights, the U.N., the E.U., or your individual nation?

              As if those are the only options. You are truly, truly uninformed.

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

              • identicon
                concerned citizen, 2 Oct 2016 @ 1:46pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Information.TROLL

                For real Mike, this skeeter individual is a troll of the first order, no one is that obtuse without trying, and everybody here today has made it fat by continuing to try to educate it.

                At first I thought maybe they were earnest but with every post the reality began to sink in; this is BS, it can't be taught or, more likely, it is jerking off as it piles up responses to the idiocy it spews.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 11:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Information.

              "As for your continued addressment of valid points with non-facts (you really haven't addressed a single point made, other than I misspelled Masnick's name)"

              You haven't made any other point that's backed by a shred of evidence. Perhaps if you'd furnish us with some of that evidence rather than a clear misreading of verifiable facts there might be a conversation? Your other ramblings are so far off-base it's hard to know where else to start.

              "you can't give us one functioning example of a multi-national entity doing something better at regulating a world function, that a single nation couldn't do better"

              Because you haven't asked me to, for one. I attacked the low hanging fruit of your inability to correctly address the person you're talking about because that was the only solid thing to address.

              But, the real question is - why do you think that a single nation needs to control a truly international resource? Could it be because you happen to have been spawned in that specific country, or is there some actual solid reason? Somehow I think that if it were, say, the UK who were in charge your opinion would be different.

              "That China has directly said they fully intend to continue filtering with their Firewall is rather succinct."

              Nobody disagrees. What's in disagreement is what the hell that has to do with the issue being discussed, other than baseless paranoia, of course.

              "I can easily guess your answer"

              That's the great this about the paranoid. They don't let facts enter the discussion when they can just attack what they presume someone else's position is rather than listen to facts. You'll "win" this conversation, of course, because you'll either not listen to what I'm actually saying in response or pretend that your version of events is better for whatever reason.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 9:58am

      Re: Information.

      -Darpa was the original manager of DNS & IANA responsibilities.
      -Bill Clinton administration approved to transfer control from DARPA to private sector and DOC recommended a NEW private non-profit to administer it.
      -DOC holds the contract, and DOC is an agency created by the government.


      Um. Your knowledge of DNS/IANA history is lacking. No Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds? You don't know what you're talking about. There's a reason why we needed ICANN, and it was because the Postel/Reynolds "hobby" solution wasn't working. And ICANN, while it has its problems, at least maintained the multistakeholder process that makes sure there ISN'T gov't control over the process, just as it had been for decades before, despite your misleading version of history.

      And since the US Constitution NEVER gave Congress the power to GIVE agencies rule/law making power, the retarded repukes from the 4 states actually DO have a point.

      If your concern is about agency rulemaking... then, uh, you've got bigger fish to fry. That boat has sailed. A long, long time ago. You may not like it, but this is hardly the point at which to bring that up.

      Congress DOES have to approve of the transition.

      Not according to basically everyone who understands this. Congress only needs to approve it if the root file was property, but it's already been determined that it's not. This is not about a property transfer, but oversight authority.

      Kinda funny to see people claiming to be "right wing" or "conservative" whining about the gov't getting out of regulating something. What's up?

      Additionally, TD is sure all hot and bothered over this subject. I am beginning to think TD has some sort of connection to this and cannot be objective about this.

      When you've got nothing else, I guess go with the conspiracy theories.

      The American Government serves out the stewardship of the IANA through a contract for management which means the US does in Fucking FACT OWN IT!

      Except the legal experts already said that's wrong.

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

  • identicon
    Jim, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:09am

    But:

    My only objection to the giveaway, we used to be the good guys on censorship. Will icann be the good guy now? Doubt it. Will they be in defense of freedom? Local rule? I doubt it. Durn.and what about next year? Or ten years down the line? Or a company takeover? Durn.

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

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:16am

      Re: But:

      Same with the US Govt anyway then, no? But I still trust a non profit, multicultural company more than the Govt...

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

      • identicon
        Skeeter, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:42am

        Re: Re: But:

        "But I still trust a non profit, multicultural company more than the Govt..."

        Well, the UN is non-profit and multicultural, albeit not a true 'company' (though, they do have a charter).

        Now, ask yourself, if you were in Syria right now, or Darfur, or Northern Iraq, do you think you'd have just as much faith in the U.N. then, considering the minimal (if any) help they had given you to this point?

        It really depends on which side of the 'transaction' you are standing. If it helps your position, you are for it, if it hurts your position, you are against it. If you can't see how it could potentially affect you, you are not informed enough about it, and need to see the issues at stake from someone not about to benefit or directly be injured by it.

        Personally, I don't see any potential real benefit from it that doesn't already exist; I see a myriad of ways we can be injured (as a nation, as a world, etc.) from it, and when the same guys that often 'down-talk' corporations and capitalism are the same ones lined up on the side of 'yes, sell it!', then I also get instant 'red flags' saying that something is NOT being said, that probably should be.

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

        • icon
          Ninja (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 9:53am

          Re: Re: Re: But:

          The UN is a joke where a few countries 'boss' more than others and formed by Governments. No, I"d rather have a non-Govt entity handle these things thank you. And it seems most agree with that much.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 10:06am

      Re: But:

      My only objection to the giveaway, we used to be the good guys on censorship. Will icann be the good guy now?

      The IANA function is not about censorship, and nothing in the current Commerce Department setup has anything to do with whether or not the internet is censored.

      Keeping the process in ICANN (which is where it's been for well over a decade) means that actual internet engineers, who absolutely favor an open internet, have tremendous influence on the process. This is a good thing.

      Will they be in defense of freedom? Local rule? I doubt it.

      Why do you doubt it? This is how ICANN has mostly worked all along. Why would that change now?

      Or a company takeover?

      What company takeover?

      Durn.

      Is that an argument?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 10:54am

      Re: But:

      My only objection to the giveaway, we used to be the good guys on censorship.

      There are two responses to this:

      1. We were never the good guys on censorship. And we're not now. For example, just this week, Twitter decided to block the account of a journalist who has spent the past seven years covering Turkey. Why? Because the government of Turkey wants him silenced, and asked Twitter, and they acquiesced. This isn't the first time Twitter's done this. And Facebook, and Yahoo, and Google, and many other American corporations have done the same.

      2. Nothing in this transition gives ICANN or anybody else more power to censor than they already posses. Nothing. Country A can pressure Corporation B, Country C can install firewalls, Country D can pressure Country E -- but they can do all of that today.

      It's become abundantly clear that many people commenting here, particularly the hysterical ones, haven't got the slightest idea what DNS does, what domain names are, why they exist, and why the 'net doesn't actually need DNS or even domain/hostnames in order to function. All they see, in their jingoist xenophobic fantasies, is a black President (oh. racist. I forgot racist) doing something with those foreign people who might be brown or yellow or something non-white, who might speak different languages, who might be from other countries, and they're freaked out by it. Too freaked out to think. Too freaked out to reason. Too freaked out to learn.

      Those of us who've actually built the Internet and who run parts of it AND who have fought censorship our entire careers aren't concerned about this. We're smarter than you, we're vastly more knowledgeable and experienced, and we're not worried. Therefore you shouldn't be either, particularly because there are plenty of other real concerns.

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

  • icon
    Tyson (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:14am

    you should be embarrassed for your Attorneys General. Elect better ones next time, please.



    Tell us how you really feel.

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:37am

    What I've learned today...

    - If Ted Cruz said it, it is gospel and no amount of facts can change some peoples minds.

    - Multiple socks will show up and argue the same faulty points, claiming its a conspiracy.

    - People who don't understand something will assume the worst possible imaginary outcome. (CHINA WILL CENSOR ALL THE TITTIES OFF THE INTERNET!!!)

    - If you don't have facts to work with, misspell the authors name repetitively and pray that you'll finally be the sock who pushes him over the edge into losing it and ranting like you do.

    - There is always that one poster who will link to some unrelated story, demanding coverage & setting the stage to support yet another wild theory.

    - There are always more nutters who will charge in with their Cruz given expertise, on something the Grandpa Munster looking dipshit who shut down the government to prove he was a badass & fucked over many people, gave them.

    vade et caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super aures tuos

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:49am

      Re: What I've learned today...

      - If Ted Cruz said it, it is gospel and no amount of facts can change some peoples minds.

      I hate Ted, but if he is right, he is right.

      - Multiple socks will show up and argue the same faulty points, claiming its a conspiracy.

      This will happen on BOTH sides so that is always a given, it is a complete waste to time to even bring it up!

      - People who don't understand something will assume the worst possible imaginary outcome. (CHINA WILL CENSOR ALL THE TITTIES OFF THE INTERNET!!!)

      That door swings BOTH ways. For yea-sayers they just imagine that things will be better regardless off what they understand.

      I get the impression you are hating Cruz only because someone told you that you needed to not like him. And that is okay, if you don't have a problem with renting your mind out.

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

  • icon
    tom (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:54am

    As a resident of one of the states participating in the legal action, my main disappointment is them waiting until the last minute to start worrying about it. This handover has been well published, has been in the planning for years, has been well studied, and the period for rational objection well past. The reason most legal processes have a 'must file objections by date X' clause is so things can get done, for better or worse.

    The judge should toss the lawsuit on the basis of them having waited too long to file for the injunction.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:00am

      Re:

      While I am pretty certain the efforts of these 4 are mostly motivated for grandstanding political purposes, the Judge cannot toss the lawsuit just because they waited until the 11th hour.

      If there is a case to be made, it must be heard, even if the plaintiff is clear to lose the case. It would be insane to support the idea that the courts cannot act on something because it was already "Signed, Sealed, & Delivered"!

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

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:55am

    It's funny how these objections suddenly appear. This transition has been on this course for ages. And everyone must have missed the other 99% of internet functions moving from the from the hands of a few people at universities and corporations to various independent organizations. DARPA itself, never mind many of its projects, including the internet (which was a hobby and innovation of various university computer nerds), is not "the Federal government" but a cooperative network. The Feds do not own state universities or all the private corporations involved.

    This has been working for years and will continue to work the same way. But if you want to whine, you really missed the ball when domain name registration was basically gifted to a private for-profit corporation which has made insane amounts of money ever since. (And has generally sucked in every incarnation.)

    But the biggest fucking hoot is watching the right wingers cry and stamp their feet about the damn Federal government fully privatizing some function that it really no longer (and hardly ever did) have a link to anyway. OMFG. They will privatize the military, police, prisons, social security... just anything. But lol this scraping the name off the glass on the door of a disused office in the corner of the building no one ever goes to is just such an incomprehensible transgression of... well, something. I thinks it's USA! USA! USA! USA! That's probably it.

    Oh, and the references to parkland are just endearing. Hey, that's the land that should be available to home and tourism developers, mining and drilling interests, and random moron ranchers for free. And someone might give it to China!

    That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. IANA/ICANN boards and working groups and the stakeholders they listen to are not going to change. It's already a government/private/globalist conspiracy. You haver already been soaking in it. For decades.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:14am

    I notice that most of those who are against the handover are of the USA rules the world camp, and they show the attitude that has painted a target on the USA.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:16am

      Re:

      You are wrong, I am 100% against the US rules the world. In fact one of the problems with the USA right now is its pro Globalist stance. I am an Isolationist along the Lines of George Washington.

      That being said... Each nation should 100% manage their own fucking internet and provide a connection on their own to other countries. I would prefer for America and other countries to get the fuck out of each others business!

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

      • identicon
        Skeeter, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:47am

        Re: Re:

        I have always believed that unilateral (nationalistic) protection is the best policy.

        It is one thing to have an 'international' convention, or various 'international clearing houses' for given operations (whether it is currency exchange, communications or border treaties), but it is another to totally relinquish national control or identity to the 'borg' of internationalism and think it will 'take good care of you'.

        This is like saying a kindergarten teacher can control her classroom, so let's put 12,000 6-year olds into a football stadium - since conglomeration is so much better. It makes no sense. Internationalism is the off-loading of local responsibility (that probably wasn't doing so well, anyhow) into a giant melting pot of massive troubles that are almost-assuredly going to be worse once you put them together.

        The E.U. was a 'great idea' (yet it is straining under its own ambiguity to stay together, amidst corruption, poor leadership and heavy taxation), the U.N. was a 'great idea' (yet it was declared 'functionally, but irreparably corrupt'), and yet with perpetual 'put them all together into a larger structure and watch them fail like falling dominoes', we just can't take a hint.

        If you aren't getting the governance you want now, what makes you think you'll get better governance when you put even more bureaucracy over anything? This is simply 'bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake', and has a track record of 0-wins, 100-losses. Why do we insist 'it's going to work THIS TIME!'?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:54am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well for the Democrats the mantra is..

          "If at first you do not succeed, Democrat Harder!... even if it makes the problem worse!" This is also true for the Republicans, but just not AS badly.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:57am

        Re: Re:

        The handover does not stop the USA from managing its own .US subdomain, or change the management of the .com domain.

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

      • icon
        Ninja (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 9:54am

        Re: Re:

        Each nation should 100% manage their own fucking internet

        You don't understand how the internet works.

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

      • icon
        Adrian Cochrane (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 10:57am

        Re: Re:

        O.K. then, go ahead and reengineer the Internet to better realize this vision.

        Because we've done this to the fullest degree possible with current protocols. But in the meantime IANA will continue (not take over) the handling of international top-level domains (which US corporations treat as their own) while giving every country their own top-level domain to manage (e.g. .us, .ca, .au, .nz, .jp)

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 4:01am

        Re: Re:

        "In any case the Government should never have allowed any private entity to manage jack and fucking shit!"

        So, you haven't a clue what this is about. Cool.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 4:03am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Strange, I managed to paste the wrong quote:

          "Each nation should 100% manage their own fucking internet"

          That was what I meant to reply to. Anyone saying this on this issue hasn't clue what they're objecting to.

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

  • identicon
    Montreal Reader, 30 Sep 2016 @ 8:17am

    Shame on you - give us the facts

    Seems that the arguments in favor of the transition are twofold (excuse the abrupt nature of my description):

    (i) The US government really has not exerted any influence on the process to date - so it's meaningless; and
    (ii) If we don't transfer, then countries like Russia and China will continue to push to take control in a much worse manner.

    But I think its fair to ask about the details of the organization who will be receiving control (or however you want to describe this transaction). Do the 'alarmists' have a point? Who will be taking over from the government? Who will now have ultimate control? Will foreign actors be able to take control of the process?

    I decided to look.

    This post doesn't tell me anything about it. So I went to the link in the post: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160610/07561834679/yes-getting-us-government-out-managing-intern et-domain-governance-is-good-thing.shtml

    Shockingly, no answers here either.

    All we get is this:

    "A key part of the Commerce Department's "transition" plan was that it would basically erase the almost entirely imaginary link between IANA and the Commerce Department, but only if a plan was created that kept IANA independent and not as a part of the UN or any organization that would lead to mostly government control, as opposed to what everyone (unfortunately) likes to call a "multistakeholder process" (which just means not just government in the room). And with that plan in place, the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) has now come out in support of this plan."

    OK - but what is the plan? We know you (Commerce Department) like it, but we've also all learned that we can't always trust the government to make good decisions. So what are the details of this plan?

    So I followed a link in that post to a "great and detailed post about why this transition is a good thing"

    https://readplaintext.com/heres-why-we-should-go-through-with-the-iana-transition-f07d36c42bb7 #.hjgcndo91

    Guess what - same problem. Good history - but other than saying that the Commerce Department has approved the plan it has no details about it.

    So I followed another link. This one took me to a megalong pdf of the actual proposal. It's long and its boring and I haven't the time to go through it. But until someone does go through it - you can't say that the people criticizing the deal aren't right. If the only defense to their claims is that 'the Obama administration says its a good plan' - well, that's no defense.

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

  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 9:32am

    Elect better ones

    Wow. Like that's an option.

    I live in Arizona. We call it "The State of Maricopa County" because all the money and all the politics originate in that one county - with Phoenix at its center.

    The rest of the state is not red, not batshit crazy, and not high on their own gasses. Unfortunately through decades the powers in Phoenix wrest more and more resources from the rest of the state to expand their power base.

    But hey, it's pretty cool for you to say "Elect better ones." I'll be repeating that to you in November ;)

    Ehud

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

  • icon
    Anti-Stone Thrower (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 10:16am

    Since when is privatization a good thing?

    I suspect there's a profit motive in this and further research will dispel altruistic motives for this give-away. Follow the money...

    The government continues to change the definition of existing laws to fit their narrative (e.g., is Uber a "Common Carrier?"). While Net Neutrality has not caused the sky to fall ...what's it done for your cable bill or your cable box? Again, rules originally written for telephone companies were interpreted to apply to land-based and wireless Internet services. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) developed the system of protocols used to link computers (i.e., TCP/IP). This was not a nonprofit or global effort. But's let's move beyond the 1970s and say that the internet was developed for the betterment of the world and redefine "public" and/or "government" as "globally inclusive."

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

  • icon
    timmaguire42 (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 10:21am

    If China and Russia don't like how we run our internet, they are welcome to create their own.

    These AGs are exactly right on a point I'm surprised you don't get. It's not subtle--the internet is a product of the ingenuity of the United States. No other country or organization has a leg to stand on if they don't like the U.S. controlling this creation of the U.S.

    The president is, without authority, giving away an asset of the United States.

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

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 11:02am

      Re:

      I'm sorry no one saw you post because no American invented HTTP...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 3:53pm

      Re:

      These AGs are exactly right on a point I'm surprised you don't get.

      I get it. They have no standing. They have no argument. They lost and for a good reason.

      It's not subtle--the internet is a product of the ingenuity of the United States.

      It was the ingenuity of a number of individuals, many in the US, and the control over it will remain in the US. Whether the US government is involved is meaningless.

      No other country or organization has a leg to stand on if they don't like the U.S. controlling this creation of the U.S.

      The US hasn't controlled it basically since the beginning. It's always been engineers doing it. This move keeps that. It keeps governments out.

      The president is, without authority, giving away an asset of the United States.


      This is just flat out wrong.

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

  • identicon
    John Mayor, 30 Sep 2016 @ 11:00am

    WHO SHOULD "RECEIVE" THE IANA?... AND WHY?

    Mike!... I agree that the IANA shouldn't be within the framework of the Commerce Department!... A-N-D B-E-C-A-U-S-E T-H-E W-H-O-L-E O-F T-H-E I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T-'-S I-N-F-R-A-S-T-R-U-C-T-U-R-E (Y-E-A, I-C-T!) I-S M-O-R-E T-H-A-N J-U-S-T T-H-E "I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-S" O-F T-H-E P-R-I-M-A-R-Y S-E-C-T-O-R C-A-L-L-E-D "B-U-S-I-N-E-S-S"!... but, it should not-- M-U-S-T N-O-T!-- be handed over to A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G L-E-S-S than a C-O-A-L-I-T-I-O-N O-F A-L-L T-H-R-E-E "P-R-I-M-A-R-Y S-E-C-T-O-R" S-T-A-K-E-H-O-L-D-E-R-S (i.e., a Coalition of Business, NGO+NPO and Bureaucratic Stakeholders!... A-N-D, "S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y S-T-A-K-E-H-O-L-D-E-R-S", at that!)!
    .
    Please!... ne emails!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 12:35pm

    Some people.

    If it's 'such a small regulatory function', then why does it need transferring in the first place?

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

  • identicon
    Ike, 30 Sep 2016 @ 2:02pm

    Embarrasing AGs

    If you live in Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma or Nevada, you should be embarrassed for your Attorneys General.

    Here in Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt has been doing a bang up job of embarrassing us for the last 6 years. This frankly comes as little surprise. If there's an opportunity for him to charge headfirst into a stupid, losing battle, he's often the first guy to sign up.

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

    • identicon
      Thad, 30 Sep 2016 @ 2:25pm

      Re: Embarrasing AGs

      Yeah, I'm from Arizona and on the one hand of course I'm embarrassed by my AG, but on the other, the last one we elected ended up getting disbarred. So, y'know, it's all relative.

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

  • identicon
    mer8771, 30 Sep 2016 @ 3:51pm

    I thank most have this all wrong.

    What your not seeing is that the US government never gives up control, ever, for anything. If you thank they gave up control your wrong. They will have already set up another organization to take over. But if you think for one minute that the United States government will give up control you're wrong, I guarantee you they have something in place to where they will not lose control. They have always done this, they claim to close down a government entity but instead all they do is rename it. If they don't rename it they completely rebuild it but it will still do the same thing as the original entity did.

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 11:43pm

    For everyone who thinks the US invented & runs the net...

    They can't pay their own bills, secure their own websites, catch a terrorist handed to them on a plate, remember that the Constitution is not a suggestion, do anything unless it appeals to some core of voters (even if its fucking stupid).

    If the Internet was run by the US, they would still be paying huge bills to the winning bidder who has had billions in cost overruns to deliver our first terminal with acoustic coupler. People would demand that the project be dumped, but the Congressman whos home state has most of the workers will keep the project alive even though its pointless now. Another nation would be on their 30th upgrade to their entire network making ours look that much more laughable.

    I'm often confused by people who scream how the government can't do anything right, but somehow think they should retain control (that they never had) and turn it into another bloated government project that they would protest against.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 3:03am

    Hey, Mike...

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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