It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Four States are suing to stop the Obama administration from transferring oversight of the internet

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Try checking all the links I posted to find out. That is why I post them




posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Try reading the links I post. They address the points made in yours.

So, who are those "many?"



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Any American Based Corporation has to Operate under U.S. Laws .



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Ok.
What laws are being violated?



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Try reading the links I post. They address the points made in yours.

So, who are those "many?"


Like I said check the links that I posted. If you think nothing will come if this then so be it. I was posting this thread only to inform people of current events. Not to hold your hand



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
ICANN is a none profit organization if we want to believe that, they had their roots in the US as a corporation, but operated independently, if you want to believe that, now why they call themselves part of globalization and members no only wants US completely off the company and the UN to take over.

That is the part I will like to know more about it, see when I read UN or hear UN it kinds of ring funny to me.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043
It's not exactly correct that the UN will be taking over, any more than the US ran ICANN until now. It didn't.


edit on 9/29/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I really don't see the big deal here. ICANN has already been doing this since the 90's. The IANA was managed by ICANN already. Literally nothing will change as far as day to day operations go. You won't notice anything different. The only difference is that the US government arm (the IANA) won't be involved and are just letting ICANN absorb the functions of the IANA which they've already been doing.

Security will be the same when it happens as it is now. Or even better since the US won't have their sticky little fingers in the mix.

Everyone crying about this now are the same people crying about Net Neutrality too. Saying that it was the end of the internet as we know it and all that BS. We can all see how wrong they were about that one. I think this will be the same outcome. Much ado about nothing.

It's funny that they're also the same people who hate Government involvement in anything. Except for when they like Government Involvement. My guess is it's because Obama is doing it, so it must be horrible.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt
I wasn't asking for my hand to be held.

I was pointing out that the claims are nonsense.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

President Obama Authorizing something he needs Congressional Approval to do . An Executive Order is Unconstitutional here in this regard .
edit on 29-9-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit


President Obama Authorizing something he needs Congressional Approval to do . An Executive Order is Unconstitutional here in this regard .
Please cite the Executive Order to which you are referring. What is its number?

Why is Congressional approval required?

edit on 9/29/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)


(post by Naturallywired removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Naturallywired

The US can ban sites quite easily. And this won't change that.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Naturallywired

The US can ban sites quite easily. And this won't change that.
That's a lie. Are you or are you not a US citizen?
edit on 9 29 2016 by Naturallywired because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I think ICANN was scared of the following two possibilitis under our current POTUS candidates hence the turn over


1. Hillary wins and she places the dns routing and config info in her basement email server.

PRO: open to the world
Con: as soon as the people find out about it , it magically gets wiped and accidently hit with hammers and all important information is lost.

2. Trump wins and he places a firewall around the dns routing and config info.

Pro: He sends the bill to the UN.
Con: no websites in the US work because the firewall is keeping all the foreign packets from coming in and the American packets don't have the bandwidth to do the low level routing work by themselve.
edit on 41930America/ChicagoThu, 29 Sep 2016 21:41:07 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

None of which has anything to do with ICANN.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

just wait and see how Foreign Oversight of the Internet will make it Uninhabitable for just about Every User out there .

How will the UN overseeing the administration of domain names do that?


How will the UN overseeing the administration of domain names benefit the USA?




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join