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.
thetruthdivision.com...
The complaint, filed by Republican attorneys general in Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas, argues the transfer violates several components of the administration’s statutory authority.
The lawsuit from Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada seeks a temporary restraining order that would prevent the IANA contract from expiring on September 30. (If or when it expires, IANA, which oversees the world's DNS and IP address allocations, will be completely under ICANN control.) This legal challenge comes the day after an effort to get Congress to block the transition failed.
www.theregister.co.uk...
The attorneys general make five main claims:
The contract is US government property and requires explicit Congressional approval before it can be handed over.
The transition would violate the First Amendment.
The NTIA did not follow the correct public comment procedures.
The NTIA does not have the authority to hand over the contract.
The transition does not properly protect the .gov and .mil top-level domains.
www.foxnews.com...
If the transfer takes place – as it is set to do on Oct. 1 -- the suit argues people will “lose the predictability, certainty, and protections that currently flow from federal stewardship of the Internet and instead be subjected to ICANN’s unchecked control.
Any thoughts?
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: gmoneystunt
I don't know how it would affect me so I am not very opinionated about it.
just wait and see how Foreign Oversight of the Internet will make it Uninhabitable for just about Every User out there .
originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: gmoneystunt
If you Think Hacking is a somewhat Serious Problem on the Internet Today , just wait and see how Foreign Oversight of the Internet will make it Uninhabitable for just about Every User out there .
KrebsOnSecurity.com was the target of an extremely large and unusual distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack designed to knock the site offline.
It was nearly double the size of the largest attack they’d seen previously, and was among the biggest assaults the Internet has ever witnessed.
krebsonsecurity.com...
The attack began around 8 p.m. ET on Sept. 20, and initial reports put it at approximately 665 Gigabits of traffic per second. Additional analysis on the attack traffic suggests the assault was closer to 620 Gbps in size, but in any case this is many orders of magnitude more traffic than is typically needed to knock most sites offline.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: igmoneystunt
Maybe you didn't get it so I will ask you directly.
So how does a permanent transfer of the internet naming system change things for the general public?
originally posted by: EternalShadow
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: gmoneystunt
Maybe you didn't get it so I will ask you directly.
So how does a permanent transfer of the internet naming system change things for the general public?
Maybe we could first define what the internet naming system is for those that may not know to further the dialogue.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
originally posted by: EternalShadow
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: gmoneystunt
Maybe you didn't get it so I will ask you directly.
So how does a permanent transfer of the internet naming system change things for the general public?
Maybe we could first define what the internet naming system is for those that may not know to further the dialogue.
I am not really sure. Maybe the OP can tell everyone since that was the issue supposedly if you read the last sentence of the OP.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: gmoneystunt
Maybe you didn't get it so I will ask you directly.
So how does a permanent transfer of the internet naming system change things for the general public?
www.foxnews.com...
originally posted by: gmoneystunt
If the transfer takes place – as it is set to do on Oct. 1 -- the suit argues people will “lose the predictability, certainty, and protections that currently flow from federal stewardship of the Internet and instead be subjected to ICANN’s unchecked control.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
I am not really sure. Maybe the OP can tell everyone since that was the issue supposedly if you read the last sentence of the OP.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: gmoneystunt
Maybe you didn't get it so I will ask you directly.
So how does a permanent transfer of the internet naming system change things for the general public?