Ranking members of Congress have initiated proceedings that would seek to block the transfer control of ICANN, the governing body of the internet, to an international consortium. The Congressmen are arguing that Obama has no authority to allow the transfer. Props to them for trying to keep the internet free and open, and not subject to the whims of the Chinas and Russias of the world.

Link

Of course the liberals will trot out their haggard "Obama proposes/Congress opposes" meme to try to deflect from the issues. In fact, I doubt if the liberals will even take ten minutes to try to understand the issue, instead relying on their knee jerk reaction.

(09-28-2015 08:04 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Ranking members of Congress have initiated proceedings that would seek to block the transfer control of ICANN, the governing body of the internet, to an international consortium. The Congressmen are arguing that Obama has no authority to allow the transfer. Props to them for trying to keep the internet free and open, and not subject to the whims of the Chinas and Russias of the world.

Link

Of course the liberals will trot out their haggard "Obama proposes/Congress opposes" meme to try to deflect from the issues. In fact, I doubt if the liberals will even take ten minutes to try to understand the issue, instead relying on their knee jerk reaction.

(09-28-2015 08:04 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Ranking members of Congress have initiated proceedings that would seek to block the transfer control of ICANN, the governing body of the internet, to an international consortium. The Congressmen are arguing that Obama has no authority to allow the transfer. Props to them for trying to keep the internet free and open, and not subject to the whims of the Chinas and Russias of the world.

Link

Of course the liberals will trot out their haggard "Obama proposes/Congress opposes" meme to try to deflect from the issues. In fact, I doubt if the liberals will even take ten minutes to try to understand the issue, instead relying on their knee jerk reaction.

It says you must subscribe in order to read the full article.

(09-28-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:04 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Ranking members of Congress have initiated proceedings that would seek to block the transfer control of ICANN, the governing body of the internet, to an international consortium. The Congressmen are arguing that Obama has no authority to allow the transfer. Props to them for trying to keep the internet free and open, and not subject to the whims of the Chinas and Russias of the world.

Link

Of course the liberals will trot out their haggard "Obama proposes/Congress opposes" meme to try to deflect from the issues. In fact, I doubt if the liberals will even take ten minutes to try to understand the issue, instead relying on their knee jerk reaction.

It says you must subscribe in order to read the full article.

typically with the WSJ, if you run a Google search and enter the article from search engine results rather than a direct link, it will let you read the whole thing.

(09-28-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:04 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Ranking members of Congress have initiated proceedings that would seek to block the transfer control of ICANN, the governing body of the internet, to an international consortium. The Congressmen are arguing that Obama has no authority to allow the transfer. Props to them for trying to keep the internet free and open, and not subject to the whims of the Chinas and Russias of the world.

Link

Of course the liberals will trot out their haggard "Obama proposes/Congress opposes" meme to try to deflect from the issues. In fact, I doubt if the liberals will even take ten minutes to try to understand the issue, instead relying on their knee jerk reaction.

It says you must subscribe in order to read the full article.

I suspect that there's probably some gaming going on by the incumbent that isn't gaming in favor of the USA, but rather of their own pockets.

OR

The rest of the world is just going to move to a new standard if they aren't let in the door, and Obama is simply trying to get the best deal for the US rather than just have our standard be eclipsed or have competition.

---

I don't know. I don't pay firewall fees to Conservative publications.

No, Barack Obama Isn't Handing Control of the Internet Over to China

(09-28-2015 11:08 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The rest of the world is just going to move to a new standard if they aren't let in the door, and Obama is simply trying to get the best deal for the US rather than just have our standard be eclipsed or have competition.

I don't think you understand how the internet works Tom.. You can't up and move to a new standard".

A far more likely scenario is a parallel system of governance but that would require countries like Sweeden and Turkey to agree on access and standards issues. That's a formula for disaster

At the end of the day here is the quesiton. Will the internet be more free under the guise of ICANN or a group which consists of China, Iran, and the UN?

This is not about Obama wanting to "secure the best deal" this is about "leading from behind" because he is a globalist who believes the USA has no place "owning" something this important.

The United States has shown it cannot be trusted to steward ICANN. This move has nothing to do with "Russia and China controlling the internet". That is merely the politically window dressing being put on it. They does, however, have A WHOLE LOT to do with maintaining the ability of ICE, ATF, DHS, FBI, and a host of other three letter agencies to seize control of domain names without so much as retaining a warrant.

Listening to most people talk politics about the internet gives me a healthy appreciation for what it must be like to be a mechanic at a Beverly Hills luxury import business. Every plastic bimbo knows exactly what is wrong with their machine and they want to emphatically tell you exactly what it is even though they don't know how to drive stick and think a tranny is Caitlyn Jenner.

Hall of Shame for this thread so far:

(09-28-2015 08:04 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Props to them for trying to keep the internet free and open, and not subject to the whims of the Chinas and Russias of the world.

(09-28-2015 11:08 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The rest of the world is just going to move to a new standard if they aren't let in the door, and Obama is simply trying to get the best deal for the US rather than just have our standard be eclipsed or have competition.

The rest of the world can already use whatever policy they wish on their country based TLD. They have total control of that. But only ICANN controls the non-country-specific TLDs that happen to also be the most popular TLDs in the world: .com .net .org .info etc, etc, etc. This is why part of your registry renewal costs for domains in those TLDs have as a line item "ICANN Renewal Fee".

(09-28-2015 12:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The United States has shown it cannot be trusted to steward ICANN. This move has nothing to do with "Russia and China controlling the internet".

Never said they would "control" the internet. I said they would have a voice and that is in fact what would happen.

Quote:They does, however, have A WHOLE LOT to do with maintaining the ability of ICE, ATF, DHS, FBI, and a host of other three letter agencies to seize control of domain names without so much as retaining a warrant.

Lets face political reality. Any move to divorce ICANN from US control is an intermediary step to handing it over to the UN.

At the end of the day I trust the US government a bit more than the United nations when it comes to liberty issues. The US government is also slightly more answerable to me than the UN.

(09-28-2015 12:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Never said they would "control" the internet. I said they would have a voice and that is in fact what would happen.

China are our bankers. They already have a voice in everything we do. Where ICANN is is largely irrelevant to that equation. You'd have an argument perhaps if there were even 1/3 of the GOP ready to tackle entitlements. But they aren't. So it doesn't matter.

(09-28-2015 12:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Lets face political reality. Any move to divorce ICANN from US control is an intermediary step to handing it over to the UN.

At the end of the day I trust the US government a bit more than the United nations when it comes to liberty issues. The US government is also slightly more answerable to me than the UN.

I disagree. There are scores of major international organizations. Who says ICANN can't be stand alone? Turning it over to the UN has all the same problems than the NCAA now faces with Cal State Fullerton having equal voting power to Alabama on football matters. It it went anywhere, it would be to something more like the G20. It would be in the hands of economically advanced countries.

(09-28-2015 12:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I disagree. There are scores of major international organizations. Who says ICANN can't be stand alone? Turning it over to the UN has all the same problems than the NCAA now faces with Cal State Fullerton having equal voting power to Alabama on football matters. It it went anywhere, it would be to something more like the G20. It would be in the hands of economically advanced countries.

You may be right GTS, I'm not so optimistic.

(09-28-2015 12:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The United States has shown it cannot be trusted to steward ICANN. This move has nothing to do with "Russia and China controlling the internet". That is merely the politically window dressing being put on it. They does, however, have A WHOLE LOT to do with maintaining the ability of ICE, ATF, DHS, FBI, and a host of other three letter agencies to seize control of domain names without so much as retaining a warrant.

Listening to most people talk politics about the internet gives me a healthy appreciation for what it must be like to be a mechanic at a Beverly Hills luxury import business. Every plastic bimbo knows exactly what is wrong with their machine and they want to emphatically tell you exactly what it is even though they don't know how to drive stick and think a tranny is Caitlyn Jenner.

Why don't you read the article and understand what this post is about before you kick into arrogant pr... ,eh, geek mode. Metaphors are meant to enlighten, not to be an audition for stand up at a $10 cover comedy club.

(09-28-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:04 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Ranking members of Congress have initiated proceedings that would seek to block the transfer control of ICANN, the governing body of the internet, to an international consortium. The Congressmen are arguing that Obama has no authority to allow the transfer. Props to them for trying to keep the internet free and open, and not subject to the whims of the Chinas and Russias of the world.
Link

It says you must subscribe in order to read the full article.

This should be a (time sensitive) clean link for anyone without a subscritpion: Not Obama’s to Give Away - WSJ

(09-28-2015 12:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Never said they would "control" the internet. I said they would have a voice and that is in fact what would happen.

China are our bankers. They already have a voice in everything we do. Where ICANN is is largely irrelevant to that equation. You'd have an argument perhaps if there were even 1/3 of the GOP ready to tackle entitlements. But they aren't. So it doesn't matter.

(09-28-2015 12:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Lets face political reality. Any move to divorce ICANN from US control is an intermediary step to handing it over to the UN.

At the end of the day I trust the US government a bit more than the United nations when it comes to liberty issues. The US government is also slightly more answerable to me than the UN.

I disagree. There are scores of major international organizations. Who says ICANN can't be stand alone? Turning it over to the UN has all the same problems than the NCAA now faces with Cal State Fullerton having equal voting power to Alabama on football matters. It it went anywhere, it would be to something more like the G20. It would be in the hands of economically advanced countries.

Of which China and France are members of. Both members coincidentally believe in some form a information constraints to the general population.