U.S. aims to give up control over Internet administration

While I believe that US took ownership of the net and has used for their own agendas including espionage on foreign nations, we are still governed by freedom of information, yes it sounds silly given the illegal doings of the government, but how would anybody feel if the net governance falls into the hands of a group of people that have no regards of freedoms from countries that their citizens have no freedom of information, like middle eastern oil princes, communist china among others.

How about censorship and ban of information that is deemed by any country to be against their believes and religions.

For those that thinks this is a good idea, just remember you may get more of what you wish for.

And then is the possibility of a splintered net due to disagreements over control.

marg6043
While I believe that US took ownership of the net and has used for their own agendas including espionage on foreign nations, we are still governed by freedom of information, yes it sounds silly given the illegal doings of the government, but how would anybody feel if the net governance falls into the hands of a group of people that have no regards of freedoms from countries that their citizens have no freedom of information, like middle eastern oil princes, communist china among others.

What you are afraid is already possible with of without this change. The Great Firewall of China is an example of that today.

I suggest you to study about how internet works (ips, domain names, TLD, DNS server, backbones, routers) and much of that fears about this event will be "dispelled" (bc the actual system is already very crap).

Been watching/reading the news on this topic. It survived the weekend, which Friday newsdump topics rarely do.

One of the top stories headlining on Drudge yesterday evening was about Russia/China seizing control once the US gives it up.

The concerns with that are obvious, and have been hit upon by several posters already. So, it really confirms the fears are real, and not knee-jerk reactions, a lot of people, professionals, congress critters, and businesses, are all rather concerned.

At this point, I am considering fracturing of the internet may be a good thing, IF the fracturing leaves OUR portion alone. What I don't wish to see, obviously, is some other government attempting to remove US websites.

Can that happen? Possibly.

www.nationaljournal.com...

The Obama administration is keenly aware of the potential for an authoritarian regime to seize power over the Internet.

So, at least this is admitted to, and not a flight of fancy, or as some critics have already proclaimed, hysteria.

DelBianco warned that without proper safeguards, Russian President Vladimir Putin or another authoritarian leader could pressure ICANN to shut down domains that host critical content.

Fears of censorship are also very real.

And, to top it all off, it is slowly coming out that this was all brought to the forefront because of Snowdens' revelations and US government spying. Other countries simply want some sense of control, and it appears this was done with a sense of appeasement. However, the spying mechanism is already in place, does anyone really think simply handing over TLD domain naming is going to inhibit spying? I just don't see how they link the two?

Edward Snowden's leaks about U.S. surveillance have only exacerbated that tension.

It seems something more of a mental trick than anything, because as has been pointed out, the equipment, backbones, the heart of everything, lies primarily within US borders. Obviously, yes, other countries have built upon that, having their own structures, but it's also a fact that cross continent cables feed other countries from the US.

It has been mentioned more than once that these cables could be the target of "terrorists", severing the world of communications world wide until repairs could be made, which would be both time and labor intensive.

mobile.reuters.com...

And on that topic, check out this story I found. It appears that the world may literally isolate the US from the REST of the internet!

Brazil, Europe plan undersea
cable to skirt U.S. spying

By Robin Emmott
BRUSSELS | Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:49am EST

By Robin Emmott

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Brazil and the European Union agreed on Monday to lay an undersea
communications cable from Lisbon to Fortaleza to reduce Brazil's reliance on the United States after Washington spied on Brasilia.

Keep in mind, ICANN is in Brussels. Hmm.

At a summit in Brussels, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff said the $185 million cable project was central to "guarantee the neutrality" of the Internet, signaling her desire to shield Brazil's Internet traffic from U.S. surveillance.

Rousseff postponed a state visit to Washington last year in protest at the U.S. National Security Agency spying on her email and phone and is now seeking alternative routes to U.S. cables.

Yep. Way to go, Obama.

Breaking news update on this story:

canadafreepress.com...

Reversal: Obama may not surrender
control of the Internet after all

Well, this idea was so horrendous that even Bill Clinton, in addition to 35 Republican senators, spoke up and told the administration not to do it, as well as a great many other
voices. Guess what. You’ll be glad to know there is still some responsiveness in government, if only because the White House feels it has no choice.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the White House is backing off, and it now appears the surrender may not happen any time soon, and maybe not at all. Assistant Commerce Secretary Lawrence Strickling said last week that the White House now is looking at extending its contract with ICANN - the organization that runs the domain registry under a contract with the U.S. government - by four years instead of simply handing over the authority to ICANN entirely as was originally
proposed.

There was also a link embedded in the article, in the second paragraph:

m.us.wsj.com...

INFORMATION AGE
April 13, 2014 6:51 PM
Keeping the Internet Free—for Now
The Commerce Department has second thoughts about surrendering
America's online oversight.

By L. Gordon Crovitz

Keeping the Internet Free—for Now

The Commerce Department has second thoughts about
surrendering America's online oversight.

Unfortunately, this is a subscription only article, as opposed to the first one, which is not.

Not a lot of other press about this, but, gotta love Canada Free Press. They carry a lot of US government news that our press refuses, or for whatever reason, will not cover.

In relation to the topic, looks like enough pressure was put on Obama about this, but you never know with him. He has a tendency to say one thing and do the polar opposite, so we shall see. If there is no monetary benefit to him or a close personal association, then I can see him backing off of it. If money is somehow involved, or some political favor to call, or being called in, forget it. He will lie and do it anyway.

So effectively, no, I don't trust him. This was allegedly "set and ready to be done" from the beginning, so why back off of it now? Allegedly, ICANN never was meant to do this longterm, blah, blah, or, was that just BS to mask the deed?

We shall see, I suppose.

Libertygal
Is this small potatoes, or, is this something to be concerned about? Who has the right to give up our rights?

I wouldn't say it's teeny tiny potatoes but on the list of people you need to worry about as far as the Internet is concerned ICANN isn't even close to the top of the list.

Groups and people who want to engage in Internet shenanigans can already do so. If you're worried about freedom on the Internet then governments, courts, and Internet Service Providers are the groups you should be worried about; those are the groups who would decide what you can or can't see and how much you have to pay in order to access the Internet. ICANN doesn't deal with any of that.

The only thing I would worry a little bit about is if ICANN moves. Right now ICANN is a non-profit located in California and operates according to California law, I'm not sure how legal disputes would be resolved if they were to move.