States Sue To Block White House Plan For Internet Transition

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Grab the popcorn and pull up a seat, this just got interesting. Attorneys general from four states have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the upcoming internet transition saying the move requires congressional authorization.

If you thought the battle over whether or not the "keys" to the internet would be handed over to an international governing body might be over quickly, we've got some bad news. Attorneys general from Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada filed a lawsuit this week in an attempt to block the Obama Administration's plan to cede control of the internet to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in October. The group argues that President Obama must get Congressional approval before "giving away government property."
 

amddragonpc

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
1,996
I see no value or benefits of giving away control of the internet. Is the world holding a gun to the head of the U.S.?
 

Shmee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2014
Messages
1,148
It was a pretty big deal to try and just give away. I am guessing the courts side with the states.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
The internet, regardless of who created it, is a global resource. I see absolutely no reason the US or any other single nation should have control over it alone at this point. I am 100% behind the President on this topic.

Except we are the most free nation in the world. What happens if a politically sensitive, politically correct body from another country says otherwise? Do you know how many times Russia and China down voted things at the UN just to be a pain in our side?

For example if I wanted to be a jerk and form a parody website with nothing but Nazi Memes (this is just a for example) or Muslim Memes (another for example only) and they go, "Nein...I mean 'No' We won't allow SpringTimeForHitler.com or OsamasOrgies.com" *Yes Yes I know this is a function of DNS...but imagine someone who is a political dissident like the Dalai Lama. What about someone who hates Putin preventing the domain IP from existing at all anywhere?

You know I should go and register those domains....(if someone hasn't already)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

-=SOF=-WID99

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
229
the internet should remain US property..the USA built the damn thing ..its like giving away billions of $ worth or years of work that the tax payers paid for ..
but we do that every day ..and the rest of the world hates the USA due to failed foreign policy mistakes we have made by our elected officials
 

fuzzylogik

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
653
Don't remember the article I saw - but NK, Iran, and China are part of ICANN as part of one of the committees (there's over 100 UN countries listed). None of the countries that rather like to limit free speech/communication would try to impose such items on other countries and not try to influence how the internet is used... right?
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
I came here for ignorant comments and I wasn't disappointed!

Good on those here who at least understand what's actually going on, when he or she finally arrives.
 

dgingeri

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
2,830
Most of the rest of the world can't be trusted with such things, because they actively curtail freedom. The internet is freedom. The whole concept of the internet is about freedom. Handing over control of that to a bunch of oppressive governments is a really, really bad idea.
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
The internet, regardless of who created it, is a global resource. I see absolutely no reason the US or any other single nation should have control over it alone at this point. I am 100% behind the President on this topic.
Spoken like a true marxist. We built it; we own it. It is by our choice that we share this resource with the world. The world should show us gratitude and appreciation and not try to steal it from us...
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Spoken like a true marxist. We built it; we own it. It is by our choice that we share this resource with the world. The world should show us gratitude and appreciation and not try to steal it from us...

What does ownership mean in the context of the internet? It's not a piece of property and the power of it comes through global use and openness.
 

amddragonpc

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
1,996
I see how committees work in Chicago politics. Giving the control away is a bad idea. It's going to become pay-to-play on the Internet if we relinquish control.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
The internet, regardless of who created it, is a global resource. I see absolutely no reason the US or any other single nation should have control over it alone at this point. I am 100% behind the President on this topic.

I'm not

The rest of the world didn't build it, we've done a decent enough job of keeping it running. If it ain't broke .......
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
What does ownership mean in the context of the internet? It's not a piece of property and the power of it comes through global use and openness.

You are correct, and with a good 30 years of openness and good stewardship behind us I see no reason to risk that by playing nice nice with people who don't play nice. Countries that refuse to allow openness in the internet for their own people should have exactly no say so in how the internet will function for the entire world.
 

Hsensei

n00b
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
50
The internet is no longer a tangible thing to be owned. The US gave up control of the internet and DNS to ICANN in the 90's. The handing over is mostly symbolic at best. Kind of like when Mickey handed you the keys to Disney world when you were 4.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Since almost no one here understands the (limited) scope of this transfer, I'll repost this information from the last time ignorant people freaked out: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/functions-transfer-faqs-14mar14-en.pdf

tl;dr:

Why are you quoting an "information paper" from the organization that is due to benefit from this transfer?

ICANN does administer these functions, under contract for the US Government. The US is the body that has the final say so on all of the work ICANN is doing. ICANN can not currently manage these functions in a manner that the US Government doesn't approve of. Change that relationship and things will change no matter how much ICANN insists differently.
 

raz-0

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
Messages
4,849
The internet, regardless of who created it, is a global resource. I see absolutely no reason the US or any other single nation should have control over it alone at this point. I am 100% behind the President on this topic.

OK, I'm taking from the general tone that you think the internet should be a free place. So, think of the transition like this.

To date the internet has been generally a place that treats speech with a US first amendment approach to things. Some locations might be more or less permissive of something, but you could generally locate a server wherever you like and say what you want to a large portion of the planet. Some places that want to be totalitarian could try and wall themselves and their populace off.

You say that shouldn't be in the hands of one nation. There's an assumption that that would mean that no ONE nation could unilaterally impose rules on it, and thus it would essentially increase freedom.

However, you ignore the other approach which is that EVERY nation could get a say and you wind up with freedom of the internet suffering a death of a thousand cuts because a UN bureaucracy has fucked everyone over.

Myself, I'm of very mixed feelings. Everything bad in terms of governance to date seems to be related to how ICANN has been trying to make being the boss of the internet into a money making business. Such as making a domain printing business so their resellers can sell off vast swaths of domains to spammers. The list of TLDs at this point is beyond fucking stupid.

I don't believe we will get a meaningful change in centralized governance. We'll either have ICANN with zero potential for any oversight and really only swayed by board composition which has been open to whoever can get their butts in there. Which is practically what we have now as I don't recall them being leaned on much by the US government, but who knows how much deterrence factor exists in the current decision making process. Worst case is that you get more balkanization of the internet by individual countries than just the various national firewalls, with one of them being the US government using the shift to be able to blame a 3rd party for policy that wouldn't stand in court if dealing with governmentally tied policy.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
The internet is no longer a tangible thing to be owned. The US gave up control of the internet and DNS to ICANN in the 90's. The handing over is mostly symbolic at best. Kind of like when Mickey handed you the keys to Disney world when you were 4.

No they did not. The US began contracting the work to ICANN, but as a contracted entity ICANN must perform that work according to US specifications under the contract. I work for a company that "controls" software development for the Army on classified intelligence processing software. But we don't own it, and we can't do what we want to with it. And even as a sub contractor with a boss, and a prime contractor boss, and a team leader boss, who are all contractors, there is a government employee who answers to other government employees who makes any of the real decisions.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
Came for 'murica posts. Wasn't disappointed. This forum is full of bitter old men.
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
Came for 'murica posts. Wasn't disappointed. This forum is full of bitter old men.
s/bitter/unbelievably ignorant/
++

Why are you quoting an "information paper" from the organization that is due to benefit from this transfer?
lol, what benefit would that be? That misinformation fueled explanation should be really entertaining.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN /ˈaɪkæn/ EYE-kan) is a nonprofit organization that is responsible for coordinating the maintenance and procedures of several databases related to the namespaces of the Internet - thereby ensuring the network's stable and secure operation.

Once ICANN is no longer under the controlling governance of a contract for management of the INAA functions, what keeps ICANN from releasing that control to someone else?

Do you think I am completely happy doing things the way my government supervisors, (customers), want me too?
Do you think that there are things I think are not being done very well and that I would like to make changes but they won't let me?
If the government took all this work we are doing and "released control of it to us, do you think we'd make changes as we saw fit?

If we were doing all this work "non-profit" would we decide to change that as well?
What would stop us?

Who controls a "Non-Profit"

This doesn't require misinformation, just a reality check.
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
Still waiting for an explanation of that "benefit" you based your whole critique of the FAQ on...

Goal posts are still a-movin' towards Wild Speculationville (pop. uninformed), apparently.
 
Last edited:

P4B

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
336
seems the last few entrails that got elected only want to give away US intelligent, guidance systems for ballistic missiles, stealth, and more.
 

Despotes

Gawd
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
806
Spoken like a true marxist. We built it; we own it. It is by our choice that we share this resource with the world. The world should show us gratitude and appreciation and not try to steal it from us...

This! Why give it away to nations that don't value free speech and are hostile towards many of our freedoms. Makes absolutely no sense at all this Administration. Actually, it does fit with how Obama view's the US. Just research Black Liberation Theology and you'll understand. The church he attended for over 20 years was a Black Liberation Theology church.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Since almost no one here understands the (limited) scope of this transfer, I'll repost this information from the last time ignorant people freaked out: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/functions-transfer-faqs-14mar14-en.pdf

tl;dr: just read it. it's a little over 2 pages of Q&As
Yes I know exactly what it means thank you. And it's still a bad idea. IPs and domain names can be denied or rescinded without reason just like some mod here could ban me for no good reason. They have that power.

to quote your document
 Maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS
 Meets the expectations of affected parties
 Maintains the openness of the Internet

"www.antiputin.com" is a security threat to the stability of the Russian republic by an outsider.
"www.reallyGreatPr0n.com" does not meet the expectations of a Muslim Country for a good use of the internet
Which translate as, "We have control to determine what 'openess is'" That's like the government saying "We have the right to a revenue stream to help the nation as a whole" but that translates as "We have the right to tax you if you like it or not."
 

Frobozz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
1,817
If it all goes wrong then the US president can save us by just bringing up our own separate internet. It'll can even have a marketable name.. I can see it now! "America ... On-Line!"
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
If it all goes wrong then the US president can save us by just bringing up our own separate internet. It'll can even have a marketable name.. I can see it now! "America ... On-Line!"

Oh that was bad. I think I'll use that joke at the next team meeting. Excuse me while I grab a notepad and write that down.
hqdefault.jpg
 

MrGreg62

Lurker
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
1,099
Yes I know exactly what it means thank you. And it's still a bad idea. IPs and domain names can be denied or rescinded without reason just like some mod here could ban me for no good reason. They have that power.

to quote your document


"www.antiputin.com" is a security threat to the stability of the Russian republic by an outsider.
"www.reallyGreatPr0n.com" does not meet the expectations of a Muslim Country for a good use of the internet
Which translate as, "We have control to determine what 'openess is'" That's like the government saying "We have the right to a revenue stream to help the nation as a whole" but that translates as "We have the right to tax you if you like it or not."
I went looking for some really great pron from that secound link and was disappointed.:bigtears:
 
Top