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?
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.
-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can see some of those posts, if taken out of context, appearing to be quite threatening. Even though I know the poster was/is an internet troll, I still wondered. If only for a moment.
Current law is pretty clear on this... you can say lots of threatening stuff. You can "endorse violence," but if you're not making an actual threat that you intend or have the likelihood of carrying out... it's protected speech.
They copy the file to their own site first for processing before downloading it to you.
There are some legal questions here, but US copyright law says, the work has to be somewhere for more than a "transitory duration." If it's just on their servers for a very brief period of time to effectuate the service, I don't see how that makes a difference.
Since they never managed to revoke his access, can he argue that he was indeed (still) authorized to the material in question? Sure, logically, since he didn't work for them anymore it stands to logic that he *shouldn't* have access, but he did. It's a technical differentiation, of course, but sometimes that is how things are decided.
Well, yes, that's an argument -- and similar ones have been made in the past. I think it makes sense, but courts haven't always agreed. And that makes it a risky argument to make in court.
Really -- if we don't complete the transfer China might feel entitled to build a great firewall? Oh wait, I thought they already had??
This is a red herring. This has nothing to do with what China does with its local internet. It's about what might happen if China has more say over the global internet. And making this transition PREVENTS that from happening.
Authoritarian regimes will do what they want with or without our approval.
Yes, on the parts they control. That's why this transition is important. To make sure that they don't get control over the wider internet.
Without the US to ensure our version of "free speech" as defined by the 1A (even as imperfect as it is and as imperfectly as it is ensured) is order of the day, its a given that other extremely more questionable organizations such as the ITU will be gunning for, and will receive, the power to ensure "free speech" as defined by most of the rest of the world. And that's at minimum, more likely it will be much worse considering that's just the baseline: other international organizations' "free speech" definition will inevitably devolve it further.
1. Nothing about the Commerce Dept/NIST role over ICANN now "ensures free speech" on the internet. So, this is meaningless garbage.
2. ITU has been using US contractual relationship over IANA as THE KEY REASON it seeks control. Ditching that connection works to PREVENT ITU from gaining power over internet governance.
3. The multistakeholder process built into ICANN/IANA means less ability for ITU and/or governments (any governments) to exert control by making sure that others, such as actual techies, have the ability to block such things.
UN = a coalition of governments. NewICANN = a coalition of something, what else, something, and RICH FUCKERS WITH POWER and a LONG list of agendas!
Man. You really have set your mind with an ignorant and wrong understanding of what's happening and WILL NOT CHANGE IT, huh? Incredible.
No, ICANN -- both before and after the transition -- will be managed by a *multistakeholder process* that involves lots of people, including technology experts. It actually STOPS a "coalition of governments" from controlling the internet governance issue, because it actually includes lots and lots of non-gov't people. And a lot of those people are NOT "rich fuckers."
But, you, who have demonstrated an inability to understand what ICANN actually does, still insist on things that are simply factually incorrect.
I love techdirt's articles but really you should stop promoting PIA which does not live up to its name AT ALL, as it it does not provide the privacy it claims.
Hmm. Reading through that article, the complaint seems to be that they use tracking services on their own website, which has nothing whatsoever to do with how safe or good the VPN service is. And if tracking services are a problem (1) we use some too and (2) there are easy ways to block them totally unrelated to VPN service.
So, yeah, it seems like a weird, misplaced complaint.