U.S. Plan to Cede Internet Domain Control on Track

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,601
Love it or hate it, it looks like the USA is about to let its domain oversight how those are handled fade away.

Since 1998, the United States, which gave birth to the Internet, has contracted out, through the Commerce Department, the management of the master database for top-level domain names like .com and .net and their corresponding numeric addresses to ICANN.
Click to expand...
 
This is one of those issues that cracks me up. All the proponents for limiting government control of things are asking for the government to keep control of something. You can't have it both ways you crazy right wing government hating dudebros!
 
BIG mistake. This is going to cause all sorts of trouble all over the place. (The government doesn't have control over this right now, and letting the UN do it is tantamount to ultimate government control by a government of bratty little kids claiming everything is "not fair." So, shut it, Frelled.)
 
...Or a better explanation why is the UN getting control will be like "wah wah! The US has this and we don't! Wah, Wah! It's not fair!" and we'll lose all sorts of things.
 
This opens up the control to the UN and any other country interested in controlling everything for propaganda and civil restraint purposes. (Russia, China, NK, etc) While I'm not entirely sure the fallout, I have a pretty firm belief that it will end up bad for the internet in general. I could be wrong though.
 
The US was/is far and away the best suited to keep the internt on the sweet spot. Turning it over to sketchy actors who resented how US control thwarted their own fetid inclinations was more wicked than dumb but still dumb. Alas this is an admin that helps enemies get nukes, pulls the rug out from allies and wants people confused about what bathroom to use. Alas there will be a teary end to all this but I'm afraid that's what it will take to fix things.
 
the901 said:
You're silly if you think they aren't. Both sides are.
Click to expand...

Both sides are getting more and more extremist all the time. The left side is fueled by Media Matters and George Soros while the right side is fueled by Fox News and those supporters. The only real difference is that the left is doing it more surreptitiously, fooling their followers for the most part, while the right is more open and honest about it. The big reason is because the leaders of the left want to transform the economy into something they can control, and they'll use all the tools they can to do it, while the right doesn't want to see their world blow up and leave us all in poverty.

Saving our livelihoods and being able to continue to make a decent living is a pretty good reason to get extremist.
 
the901 said:
You're silly if you think they aren't. Both sides are.
Click to expand...

His statement implied that everyone on the left are extremists since there was no qualification beyond left wing. Implying that everyone of a large group is an extremist is an extreme statement.
 
This will create a crisis. A crisis that will only be solved by requiring Certification at the deepest levels of browser protocols. Certification that the government will assume control over. Allowing it to pick and choose who has an internet presence.

Won't happen overnight. But the pieces are being put in place.
 
dgingeri said:
Both sides are getting more and more extremist all the time. The left side is fueled by Media Matters and George Soros while the right side is fueled by Fox News and those supporters. The only real difference is that the left is doing it more surreptitiously, fooling their followers for the most part, while the right is more open and honest about it. The big reason is because the leaders of the left want to transform the economy into something they can control, and they'll use all the tools they can to do it, while the right doesn't want to see their world blow up and leave us all in poverty.

Saving our livelihoods and being able to continue to make a decent living is a pretty good reason to get extremist.
Click to expand...

Almost, there.
The right is been no more open and honest than the left is.

The right wants to keep the economy as is so their government backed crony capitalism can keep up the status quo while lining their pockets.

To say that players on the right or left give a crap about the average citizen is laughable at best.

To the point of the Article, the UN shouldn't be involved, but then again neither should have the US government in the first place.
 
This is one of those ideas that sets out with good intentions and seems like a good idea on paper.

But like with anything Governmnet related, this has a potential to turn out disastrous. At most, I would allow some, but not all members of the EU access to help regulate it, specifically ones that do not have censorship issues. The entire UN? Holy shitsnacks. Russia has a government sponsored propaganda and troll machine called the "Internet Research Agency". China...we all know about the infamous Great Firewall. Then of course there is the world's bastard child called North Korea that somehow was allowed to join.
 
frelled said:
This is one of those issues that cracks me up. All the proponents for limiting government control of things are asking for the government to keep control of something. You can't have it both ways you crazy right wing government hating dudebros!
Click to expand...

That's because you don't understand the proponents of what limited government means. It doesn't mean no government. It means limited. Limited in what it maintains and controls. I think anyone with an ounce of constitutional honesty knows that government has clearly overstepped its boundaries, wanting to see a government curtailed in certain areas is appropriate and others not appropriate. In this case, I don't think it is appropriate for government to cede it's interests to other national forces. So as a citizen, I'd like it for my government to maintain control of this particular piece of infrastructure.
 
frelled said:
This is one of those issues that cracks me up. All the proponents for limiting government control of things are asking for the government to keep control of something. You can't have it both ways you crazy right wing government hating dudebros!
Click to expand...

You've missed the point.

It's about YOUR government, who started the whole thing, giving that control away to ANOTHER government.

Bad idea.

Everybody, start writing down IP addresses :)
 
thedocta45 said:
Almost, there.
The right is been no more open and honest than the left is.

The right wants to keep the economy as is so their government backed crony capitalism can keep up the status quo while lining their pockets.

To say that players on the right or left give a crap about the average citizen is laughable at best.

To the point of the Article, the UN shouldn't be involved, but then again neither should have the US government in the first place.
Click to expand...

The US government DEVELOPED the internet in the first place, then known as ARPANET, through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. They handed over control of domain names to ICANN, a civilian, non-governmental organization, in a long process from 1998 to 2009. So, since 2009, the government has had no control over DNS. So, your comment about "the US government shouldn't have been involved in the first place" is kind of like saying your mother shouldn't have been involved in your life in the first place.

Secondly, yes, most of the right are more interested in keeping their pockets full, but the Democrats are as involved in crony capitalism as the Republicans, perhaps even more so. Regulations are a hurtful thing against small businesses, while the big businesses are able to weather them. It's the Democrats that push for more regulations.

The big difference is that the Republicans' way of doing it is profitable for all of us, if some more than others, while the Democrats' methods breed poverty and trouble. We have ALWAYS done better under Republicans than Democrats, except Nixon and Kennedy. The Democrats that get credit for good economics just rode the wave created by their Republican predecessor.

(Nixon was an economic idiot, and Keynesian believer. Jimmy Carter took a lot o heat from Nixon's idiotic policies, but he did make them all worse. Kennedy's policies cut tax rates by almost half, and increased taxes collected by almost 100%. Johnson got a lot of credit for it, but he had little to do with it. The richest were being taxed at a 91% rate, yet the government was collecting less than 10% of the GDP in taxes and the economy was stalled and stagnant. After Kennedy's policies went through, after his assassination, the country rebounded, jobs were created in large quantities, and the government started collecting over 15% of the GDP in taxes, after cutting the taxes on the richest by 50%. He knew what he was doing.)

It's best that you know history before making comments about economics.
 
dgingeri said:
...Or a better explanation why is the UN getting control will be like "wah wah! The US has this and we don't! Wah, Wah! It's not fair!" and we'll lose all sorts of things.
Click to expand...
That's about the only thing the Useless Nancy-boys are "united" on.
 
dgz said:
Care to explain why?
Click to expand...

China and Sweden is part of the UN. That should be enough. A country that basically censors stuff left and right in favor of their own stuff. And a country that fucking renamed birds because they are scared of it seeming racist.

Not that I think the US is a great country, but it's not doing too bad right now at the reigns.
 
frelled said:
This is one of those issues that cracks me up. All the proponents for limiting government control of things are asking for the government to keep control of something. You can't have it both ways you crazy right wing government hating dudebros!
Click to expand...

Really?

All of them?
 
if the other countries in charge of it were more like the US or europe, it wouldn't be an issue.

But problem is there still lots of countries that are a democracy only in name not practice. Some are quite oppressive and against freedom of the press.

Do we really want to give countries like these a means to get their hands on domain access ?

us isn't a saint (heck with all the snooping going on) but it could be a lot worse x_x; (russia comes to mind and china too)
 
frelled said:
This is one of those issues that cracks me up. All the proponents for limiting government control of things are asking for the government to keep control of something. You can't have it both ways you crazy right wing government hating dudebros!
Click to expand...

Well just remember that the Internet is being given up by the only the country in the world who's overrideing principle is that the citizens have natural rights. Not rights given to them. Not saying that is in practice, but it is at least plastered on the wall.
 
westrock2000 said:
Well just remember that the Internet is being given up by the only the country in the world who's overrideing principle is that the citizens have natural rights. Not rights given to them. Not saying that is in practice, but it is at least plastered on the wall.
Click to expand...

So, you mean it's being given up by a government that has a motivation poster in their office? Okay.
 
dgingeri said:
The US government DEVELOPED the internet in the first place, then known as ARPANET, through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. They handed over control of domain names to ICANN, a civilian, non-governmental organization, in a long process from 1998 to 2009. So, since 2009, the government has had no control over DNS. So, your comment about "the US government shouldn't have been involved in the first place" is kind of like saying your mother shouldn't have been involved in your life in the first place.

Secondly, yes, most of the right are more interested in keeping their pockets full, but the Democrats are as involved in crony capitalism as the Republicans, perhaps even more so. Regulations are a hurtful thing against small businesses, while the big businesses are able to weather them. It's the Democrats that push for more regulations.

The big difference is that the Republicans' way of doing it is profitable for all of us, if some more than others, while the Democrats' methods breed poverty and trouble. We have ALWAYS done better under Republicans than Democrats, except Nixon and Kennedy. The Democrats that get credit for good economics just rode the wave created by their Republican predecessor.

(Nixon was an economic idiot, and Keynesian believer. Jimmy Carter took a lot o heat from Nixon's idiotic policies, but he did make them all worse. Kennedy's policies cut tax rates by almost half, and increased taxes collected by almost 100%. Johnson got a lot of credit for it, but he had little to do with it. The richest were being taxed at a 91% rate, yet the government was collecting less than 10% of the GDP in taxes and the economy was stalled and stagnant. After Kennedy's policies went through, after his assassination, the country rebounded, jobs were created in large quantities, and the government started collecting over 15% of the GDP in taxes, after cutting the taxes on the richest by 50%. He knew what he was doing.)

It's best that you know history before making comments about economics.
Click to expand...

Right, should have corrected that to the Commerce Department should have relinquished control much before 2009.

As far as economics is concerned, I would agree that Republican's are generally better for the economy, but I don't think they go far enough.

The government as whole is too moderate, red or blue I think we need less government in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top