Meet the New Authoritarian Masters of the Internet

People like OP used to be on the cutting edge of alternative media, these days people like OP will believe anything the read from morons like Alex Jones.

We've never had this much information so freely available and some people still act like we're living in North Korea.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

This may come as some mindboggling point to make but, 'they' will never control the Internet.

Only to those that do not wish to understand the inner workings and know how to break past all locks and gates then they are happy to live in the lies they are fed. Point being made, can not help everyone. However no matter what kind of barrier those in power wish to use, they cannot and will not stop the growth of the Internet.

DARPA built the Internet, government controlled however they did not invision it to become the untamed beast it is and isn't that a beautiful thing...

Point is there are more talented hackers and computer users then there are those that are paid to stop them. Funny really and I can imagine this really annoys those in upper positions.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Can someone explain to me how domain names has anything to do with banning content?

So do you realy think SPEECH should be controlled by Russia,China,Turkey,Saudi Arabia, and North Korea?

Our speech. The worlds speech.

Every country listed there makes nazi book burning look like amateur hour.

There isn't just A reason to oppose international control of ANYTHING to do with the internets.

There is a plethora from being denied if they don't like the name chosen to content if it 'offends' (insert) whois.

Not to mention the death nail of peer to peer.

Lots of good reasons to oppose it.

a reply to: neo96

So do you realy think SPEECH should be controlled by Russia,China,Turkey,Saudi Arabia, and North Korea?

No.

Every country listed there makes nazi book burning look like amateur hour.

Have you seen the entire committee, or just those? Do you have the slightest idea of how ICANN has been operating so far?

a reply to: MrSpad

Thank you-a million times. I think I get it now and am not as concerned. There has been a flurry of crazy "what ifs" on here.
Hopefully-you are right.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Can someone explain to me how domain names has anything to do with banning content?

Stemming from community input and the recommendations of the Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework, the Development and Public Responsibility Department (DPRD) strengthens existing programs and has established new programs that respond to Community and Regional needs. These efforts are designed to strengthen the multistakeholder model by addressing participation needs.

Tell me, if it's just about handing out Domain Names and registration, why the need for the above?

a reply to: Tempter

Because the reason ICANN exists at all is to help the internet function.

As one of the key players in the Internet ecosystem, ICANN has the ability and the responsibility to ensure
that the Internet remains a shared global resource. While it is argued that ICANN has a broad public
responsibility towards all stakeholders this panel framework report aims to explore how ICANN can better
address the global public interest through a realistic approach that reviews its current activities, and
identifies opportunities and key targets that can be addressed in the next few years to strengthen its
commitment to ensuring that the Internet becomes and continues to be stable, inclusive, and accessible
across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet.

A sample inventory of current projects can be found in Appendix 2. Recent highlights include:
§
“DNS Sector Task Forces”
–
§
“Working groups of CEOs and other DNS Sector players to enhance the sector.”
§
“DNSSEC Roadshow

Education on how the internet functions. Collaboration with those who use it. A terrible thing. Terrible.
www.icann.org...

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Can someone explain to me how domain names has anything to do with banning content?

So do you realy think SPEECH should be controlled by Russia,China,Turkey,Saudi Arabia, and North Korea?

Our speech. The worlds speech.

Every country listed there makes nazi book burning look like amateur hour.

There isn't just A reason to oppose international control of ANYTHING to do with the internets.

There is a plethora from being denied if they don't like the name chosen to content if it 'offends' (insert) whois.

Not to mention the death nail of peer to peer.

Lots of good reasons to oppose it.

It's "knell". Death knell. ICANN's administrative domain confers upon it no ability to impact the adoption or lack thereof of peer-to-peer technologies. Removing the US as the sole arbiter of affairs will not lead to the collapse of free speech on the Internet. I assure you breitbart.com will remain untouched. No need to succumb to anxiety.

a reply to: FamCore

LOL im in

a reply to: Kali74

Kali made the point I was trying to make below more accurately

I'm not going to lie and say the idea of us handing over control of any aspect of the internet to a multi-national non-profit (though at least it's not a for profit corporation I suppose) doesn't make me at all uneasy.

That said... it's worth noting that this was actually a solution competing against what several countries, including Russia and China, wanted to do instead.

www.cnet.com...

Supporters of the handoff also argued that preventing the transfer could actually lessen US impact on the net.

Russia and China, among others, had backed the idea of empowering an obscure United Nations body called the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) with internet governance duties. That would have given governments control, but it also would have diminished the relative importance of tech powers like the States.

It seems like under this set up, the countries with the most sophisticated technical expertise will retain the most influence over the internet.

ICANN also says it will have no authority to limit or control actual net content, and that to that extent, nothing will change.

"ICANN is a technical organization and does not have the remit or ability to regulate content on the internet," the group said prior to the transfer. "That is true under the current contract with the US government and will remain true without the contract with the US government."

www.cnet.com...

Whether one believes that or not is another matter.

Peace.

originally posted by: Ebumping

a reply to: Kali74

If say, for example the IP address of abovetopsecret.com is 72.20.54.104

If I wanted to make an opinion disappear from said website and I have control over domain names, I can remove the connection between "www.abovetopsecret.com" and 72.20.54.104

Following this action the only way anyone would be able to connect to our favorite conspiracy website would be if you already knew the corresponding IP address.

It becomes much more difficult to find out after the website has been separated, this isn't a filter but has the potential to make sections of the internet "disappear" from the public more or less.

Sort of true. So ICANN by a degree of separation controls the root servers in the DNS hierarchy, which means they allocate top-level domains or "TLDs". Examples include .us, .net, .org, and .com. The root servers delegate control over these TLDs to registries that are generally regional in nature. So, ICANN's control is on the level of ".com". It's no more granular than that. The use of the root servers in question is fundamentally configurable and voluntary. Your ISP (or an enterprising individual who understands what they're doing) could include root servers that are not controlled by ICANN, in part or entirely, and thus bypass whatever control they have. That's how the Internet is built. Isn't it beautiful?

ICANN services an administrative and organizational function that is hugely useful and international in interest. It is not surprising nor concerning that such would become an international matter at this point. To fret overly about such a shift betrays a lack of understanding of how these things work.

So, to bring this back around to your example, ICANN could potentially influence the resolution of abovetopsecret.com by deputizing a new registry for .com, but not without also influencing the resolution of google.com.

If I wanted to make an opinion disappear from said website and I have control over domain names, I can remove the connection between "www.abovetopsecret.com" and 72.20.54.104

ICANN doesn't control that part of the DNS, that "connection". That is contained in the nameservers the domain is using.

i love how much worse the scaremongerers are making themselves look on this thread

"America must retain sole control of all important functions! the rest of the world wants to play a role? that's so nazis!"

like wow you've got things so wrong but thanks for showing your colours there

This thread is so nonsensical/fear mongering and ignorant. There are so much alternative DNS servers you can use. Stop acting like "the internet was handed over". No, it wasn´t!

Learn how the internet works.

Just as an addendum to my prior post:

After some searching, I can also find no association between ICANN and North Korea as the article claims. Unless they have observer status or something? But that wouldn't give them any authority over how ICANN functions whatsoever, and I can find no evidence that even that is the case. Is the implication being made that simply because ICANN is "international" in character and composition, that must by default include all of the nations listed in the article?

So, no DPRK connection that I can find, and two of the other countries mentioned - China and Russia - wanted a different, competing solution to be adopted (they wanted to give a UN organ control, which would have in turn remanded control to each individual country) whereas ICANN was what seems to have won out instead. And as others have pointed out, including ICANN themselves, they are a technical organization with no control whatsoever over internet content itself.

It doesn't seem like there's any conspiracy to curtail or censor internet speech to me.

Peace.

Peace and love ! David de rothschild , jacob rothschild , evelyn de rothschild and nathanial rothschild and other criminal accomplices are the fake authorians of the world internet system , the presidents and prime ministers and vice presidents are their figurative marrionettes on a string ! Do not let any materialists deceive your minds ! Peace and love from the mysticalmetalhippie