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.

 

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

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu
The same way ICANN's administration currently does. By cataloging the assignment of domain names.
There is no change in the role of the US in the administration.

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




posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu
The same way ICANN's administration currently does. By cataloging the assignment of domain names.
There is no change in the role of the US in the administration.


ICANN's current administration is in contract with the NTIA.

I followed another poster's link to the NTIA site:

www.ntia.doc.gov...

What confuses me is that they say they will "transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector."

How the heck is the UN the private sector? Is citing the UN a red herring? I can't find any mention of them in the links. The closest I have found is 'foreign governments.'

Has there been some problem with the current system that would require such a transition? I'm all for privatization mind you, but I am not comfortable with the possibility of ceding the free expression/market that is the internet to entities that have shown no respect for free expression/markets.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
0
edit on 9 29 2016 by Naturallywired because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I spent almost two hours this evening trying to understand the initiative only because a friend emailed me asking about it. I admitted outright, in my reply, that most of the proposal was well-above my understanding, but after downloading and scanning just a few committee reports from the UN web site, visiting the Internet Socity web site, and even reading ICANN site information, the only issue I read about that dismays me is the proposed loss of public access to the WHOIS database, except for government, including law enforcement from federal to local. Even media and journalists along with the general public will lose access to WHOIS information. (Yes, when registering a domain we can already privatize the information in WHOIS by paying a fee to the registrar at time of name leasing/renewing, and yes, the newly created management entity will most likely offer a paid subscription service option to access WHOIS.)

I use WHOIS monthly to no only follow-up on whacky web sites, but also to check sub-domain or top domain name info when I receive an email from an unknown sender. And, too, users here at ATS often do screen caps of interesting information from the WHOIS data base.

Two other issues related to the ICANN changes which surfaced during my internet travels tonight were "trademarking/branding" issues and the current dispute process under ICANN management, and something about, I believe, root zone.

I speculate when it becomes privately controlled by stakeholders around the world, money will be made in new and exciting ways, and general users will shoulder the burden of higher costs, somehow.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The talk about the UN would seem to be pretty much a red herring (one that I followed for a bit). Perhaps it comes from the fact that out of the 111 GAC members, 108 are UN members.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: interupt42

None of which has anything to do with ICANN.


You seriously don't think The possibility of HIllary placing the ICANN root Server L on her email Server , which serves part of the DNS root zone had nothing todo with the ICANN decision , you don't say?

It was a joke.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: gmoneystunt
I wasn't asking for my hand to be held.

I was pointing out that the claims are nonsense.


Why are the claims nonsense? Cause ICANN said so?

You can't guarantee what is going to happen or not. Neither can I



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Lots of people pointlessly arguing about potential impacts.

The lawsuit clearly states legal reasons as to how the transfer isn't follow proper procedures nor being done with proper approvals.

The three pages of drivel about what could happen after are pointless.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: EightAhoy
Internet Socity web site, and even reading ICANN site information, the only issue I read about that dismays me is the proposed loss of public access to the WHOIS database, except for government, including law enforcement from federal to local. Even media and journalists along with the general public will lose access to WHOIS information. (Yes, when registering a domain we can already privatize the information in WHOIS by paying a fee to the registrar at time of name leasing/renewing, and yes, the newly created management entity will most likely

Two other issues related to the ICANN changes which surfaced during my internet travels tonight were "trademarking/branding" issues and the current dispute process under ICANN management, and something about, I believe, root zone.


If true, this is a valid concern.

And since ICANN is not U.S. Government Property, how can Obama
and Congress determine this U.S. based Non Profit must become
governed by The United Nations?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Congress has no involvement. The government contract with ICANN, which Congress approved, expires today.

Obama has no involvement.

ICANN will not be governed by the UN.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burntheships

Congress has no involvement. The government contract with ICANN, which Congress approved, expires today.

Obama has no involvement.



So, lets look at your statement a bit closer.

"The Government contract with ICANN"

"Congress has no involvement"

Seems contradictory ....

Which is it?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Congress authorized the contract.
The contract expires today. After today there is no contract. After today ICANN has no contract with the government.

edit on 9/30/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
In a last-ditch effort to stop the planned transfer, the attorneys general of four states — Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and Nevada — are in Galveston Federal Court today, where they are asking Judge George Hanks to grant a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block the imminent transfer and give the states sufficient time to sort out legal and constitutional issues, as well as provide protections to state government websites that could be at risk from the transfer.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt
They've had since March to sort out those "issues."



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

you know, lets wait til the last couple of hours to do something about it.


Sounds like they are in court now



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt
Do what? Stop a contract from expiring?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

not sure, I think it just blocks the transfer until congress gets back. Congress adjourned for a six-week recess, until November 14. Then maybe sort it out



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt
I'm not sure what transfer you are referring to.
The contract with ICANN expires. ICANN no longer works for the US government.
edit on 9/30/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

www.thenewamerican.com...

Site says the transfer of a key part of the Internet architecture to a unaccountable global organization.

I know what you mean about the contract expiring. I'm not sure of the legal logistics of it. We shall find out soon either way.

edit on 30-9-2016 by gmoneystunt because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join