Ridiculously Stupid: 4 State Attorneys General File Totally Bogus Lawsuit Against Internet Transition
from the make-it-stop dept
Okay, this is really dumb. What is it about state attorneys general making totally bullshit claims? It seems to happen with fairly consistent frequency. The latest is that four state AGs (from Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada) have filed a lawsuit to stop the IANA transition. If you don't recall, we've written about this a bunch. A bunch of people are up in arms over something they don't seem to understand. The IANA transition is a good thing. It's not the US government handing over the internet to Russia and China as you may have heard. It's the Commerce Department severing an almost entirely symbolic link between it and a very specific internet governance capability concerning top level domains. And it's important to complete the transition because other countries (including Russia and China) keep pointing to this symbolic link as a reason for why they should have more say in internet governance. Getting rid of the link keeps the internet functioning as it has for decades -- and takes away a weapon from Russia and China. More importantly, going back on the transition now actually gives even more ammo to Russia and China, allowing them to point to unilateral actions by the US gov't to block a process that everyone had agreed upon earlier.Anyway, to the actual lawsuit. It's dumb. It's really dumb. If you live in Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma or Nevada, you should be embarrassed for your Attorneys General. Elect better ones next time, please. First of all, they have no standing whatsoever to file this lawsuit. The IANA/top level domain system is not those states' property. They have no claim here other than "HEY LOOK! POLITICAL FOOTBALL THAT WE CAN GRANDSTAND OVER!" That does not give them standing. The best they can come up with for claiming standing is... uh... "hey, we have some websites." No, really.
Plaintiffs operate multiple websites, including those that use the .gov and .com generic top level domains, to conduct their business and communicate with their citizens.Yeah. That's not enough to get standing here, buckos. Also, in filing a lawsuit they don't allege any actual harms. That's kind of a big no no when filing a lawsuit. Instead, they sorta maybe kinda speculate that maybe possibly there could (sorta, maybe) be some (possible, maybe, not really) harm in the theoretical future. Maybe.
Second, the entire crux of the lawsuit is that the authoritative root zone file and the internet domain name system itself are somehow "property" of the federal government, and that this transition is, in effect, the giving away of government property without an act of Congress, violating the Property Clause of the Constitution. Except, as we just discussed recently, the Government Accountability Office studied this issue earlier this month and came to the conclusion that "nope, it's not property." In case you missed it then:
It is unlikely that either the authoritative root zone file—the public “address book” for the top level of the Internet domain name system—or the Internet domain name system as a whole, is U.S. Government property under Article IV. We did not identify any Government-held copyrights, patents, licenses, or other traditional intellectual property interests in either the root zone file or the domain name system. It also is doubtful that either would be considered property under common law principles, because no entity appears to have a right to their exclusive possession or use.Others have walked through some of the other charges and find them all totally lacking. A judge is set to review this request for an injunction later today, and you never know how any individual judge might rule. So it's entirely possible that this will muck up the timing of the transition, but long term, this filing is not just a joke, but it's an embarrassment and a waste of taxpayer money in those four states.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arizona, congress, gao, iana, iana transition, internet governance, nevada, oklahoma, property, standing, texas
Companies: icann
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How many are up for reelection this cycle?
The GOP, our leaders said something batshit... quick do something with it to show people how much we care. I wonder where all of this concern is in OK, how many probes into all of the earthquakes and action to work out compensation for the people whos homes are shaking apart because the state approved something & ignored bad things could happen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apart from the .gov part, replace "citizens" with "customers" so do both I and the company I work for. As do most companies, and a huge number of private citizens in the world. They can't be silly enough to be saying that all those millions of people have a direct say in how the internet is run, surely?
Sadly, I think the answer is yes, they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I had to do a quick search, and - yes, they are all Republicans. Quelle surprise, although they don't all seem to be up re-election based on a quick Google search.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmmmm
(this may be the root cause of the fear)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
Do you not read your own site?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160708/06390434915/china-decrees-that-all-news-websites-must-fun nel-through-government-approval.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151006/10194832450/china-lo oks-to-quell-dissent-with-citizen-scores-number-that-tracks-purchases-opinions-social-circles.shtml
A nd I could go on and use examples about other countries - like Thailand - that are HEAVY web censors.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140523/05313527343/thailand-coup-leaders-insist-their-or ders-to-censor-internet-are-not-actually-censorship.shtml
And you seem to be pro turn over the internet to a group - which China will no doubt be part of and hold great influence over.
Seriously? Are you stupid or insane... or both?
I am for ANYONE who tries to stop this. As I've said before, the US has it's issues but it's still the BEST for allowing free speech. I know that's not saying alot, but compared to other countries we are leagues better.
Stop drinking kool aid and start reading your own site!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
and Also
U.N news agency scrubs tweet calling on Americans abroad to 'end Trump'
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/un-news-agency-scrubs-tweet-calling-on-foreign-citizens-to-end -trump-228934#ixzz4Lk41NRwA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Early morning grammar naziing.
This reads better as there could (positional there rather than possessive their). Even if talking about their harm that could come in the possible maybe future.
My brain wants to write it ...maybe there could possibly (sorta, maybe) be some (...) harm... but that's because I'm a dork.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
Yes, they do. Indeed, the article has this near the start:
"If you don't recall, we've written about this a bunch. A bunch of people are up in arms over something they don't seem to understand. The IANA transition is a good thing. It's not the US government handing over the internet to Russia and China as you may have heard."
Your rant doesn't address or refute that point, but does spend a lot of time talking about issues that are irrelevant if that claim is true. It's irrelevant what China is doing on its own internet connections if they are not being given control, which the author states quite clearly is false. You should either prove him wrong, or stop panicking over things that don't matter.
Usually, whenever I see someone immediately whining about "leftist" or "left wing", I presume that what's lacking is ignorant fear-mongering and I'm right to be reading and agreeing with the source at hand. Your comment does nothing to dispel that assumption.
Perhaps you need to stop drinking whatever it is you're drinking, or adjust your debate tactics to include facts and evidence rather than dismissing anything you disagree with as "left wing".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
Happily for you, you're not alone: these four A.G.'s are right there with you. It's a wonder that anyone of you can eat with a fork without perforating your faces.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hmmmm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post? - What about the Author : -(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who cares what four pea-brained idiots think of a standards organization transition? And who will listen?
Next legal action: "Four State AG's Sue El Niño for Forest Fire Losses"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: and Also
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wtf?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post? - What about the Author : -(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think the ICANN transition is bad, but for different reasons
It's a shame that exactly the wrong tack was taken trying to stop the transition, because ICANN has real, genuine, problems relating to accountability, and they routinely flout their own accountability measures, and seek to have the ones they have in place watered down.
Not turning over the contract until those problems were fixed would have been a good idea, but there's no hope for that now, since Ted Cruz wanted to make a complete fool of himself.
(What's the big rush, anyway? The US Govt. has not interfered with ICANN/IANA one bit over the years. Who cares if China and Russia don't like the US holding the contract? If they don't like it, they can make their own damn internet, which is more-or-less what they'd prefer anyway.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
That's all in your mind because you don't understand the facts, you think that what we're writing is "left wing." It's not left wing. It's not right wing. It's just the truth.
But if you're so brainwashed, how about reading the following from some "right wing" folks, who all agree with me:
The Cato institute is not exactly left wing, right?
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-radio/julian-sanchez-discusses-icann-wwls-thin k-tank-w-garland-robinette
Mercatus Center is famously right wing:
https://www.mercatus.org/expert_commentary/how-russia-and-un-are-actually-planning-take-over-in ternet
Niskanen Center (sort of a spin off of Cato):
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/284443-us-should-relinquish-control-of-internet
R Street (right wing think tank):
http://www.rstreet.org/2016/09/13/domain-name-not-resolved-breaking-down-the-debate-over-the-i cann-transition/
So, fuck off with the bogus partisanship. This is not a left wing or right wing issue.
I so hate election season, which encourages people to turn any story into a partisan one. This isn't a partisan issue at all, other than the fact that a SMALL group of people on one side of the partisan line are stupidly trying to block this, while plenty of actual knowledgeable people on BOTH sides of the partisan line, recognize why it should move forward.
A nd I could go on and use examples about other countries - like Thailand - that are HEAVY web censors.
Yes, and none of that has anything to do with the IANA transfer.
And you seem to be pro turn over the internet to a group - which China will no doubt be part of and hold great influence over.
Did you not read the post? Because if you state what you just stated, you're wrong. You are ignorant.
Seriously? Are you stupid or insane... or both?
You might want to hold that question up in a mirror. I actually understand the issues here. You do not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mesnick Missing the Point
Currently, the Dept of Commerce has control of the internet, in other words, the U.S. Federal Government. He advocates what most judges and AGs are supportive of, that is the SALE of Internet Domain Control from U.S. Government ownership and control to ICANN, a private CORPORATION (wow, you techdirt guys can't decide if you're against Capitalism or for it - how about a Wind Sock or something?).
So, if unchallenged, ICANN gets control of domain names (and a few other jewels), and as a private corporation, SOMEONE (that you may or may not know who owns it, kinda like the Federal Reserve Bank) controls the world domains. Not really the internet? Well, if you're CHINA and want to own .mil, I guess it's all cool if you have gold for money, and the U.S. has debt for money. What happens when just anyone can buy .gov, .mil, etc. domain names? What happens when suddenly no one can comment on 'CHINA' if in .us ? You can't even offer up who will own ICANN in a year.
Why are you so supportive of this? You say this is foolish-rubbish, that four stupid AG's are countering ICANN on this 'buy out', but the actual lawsuit is why you can't buy the Grand Canyon from the government. It is being hailed as an 'illegal sale of a keystone of national security', which is in fact, illegal for ANYTHING to be sold by the Federal Government without the approval of Congress (else, the President would have most-likely sold a few interstates by now to pay for his wardrobe, or something).
No, it's a very valid complaint the AG's have, and sadly, seem to be the only ones voicing this problem of a Presidential 'Order' that is highly illegal, to sell a solid tech-invention of predominantly U.S. concept to a PRIVATE CORPORATION, for purposes not fully defined other than to 'get it off the back of the U.S. Government'. Heads up, it's not sellable popaganda, and those cheering it now will wish they could complain about it later when a foreign or unknown interest has control of the internet domains, able to filter at will who-gets-to-say-what, and from what domain name.
Lots of foolishness in this article, either that, or obviously there's something Mesnick isn't really telling us about why such a sale would be 'good for the internet', that not one other person has pointed out so far, in over 20-years of trying (and failing) to make this happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Information.
-Darpa was the original manager of DNS & IANA responsibilities.
-Bill Clinton administration approved to transfer control from DARPA to private sector and DOC recommended a NEW private non-profit to administer it.
-DOC holds the contract, and DOC is an agency created by the government.
And since the US Constitution NEVER gave Congress the power to GIVE agencies rule/law making power, the retarded repukes from the 4 states actually DO have a point.
Congress DOES have to approve of the transition. Just because the citizens "as usual" are ignorant of things and have allowed the US Government to run rampant means jack shit.
Additionally, TD is sure all hot and bothered over this subject. I am beginning to think TD has some sort of connection to this and cannot be objective about this.
Why is it so bad for our politicians to cause a problem over this transition but NOT bad for the politicians from around the world to cause a problem over it? According to the history, The American Government serves out the stewardship of the IANA through a contract for management which means the US does in Fucking FACT OWN IT! Additionally, the fact that it was given to a PRIVATE entity profit or not is another corruption.
One thing I do agree with TD on is that this does need the light of day shown upon it, but there is no justification for bashing people that want to keep it under American control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's what you are recommending, you do realize? The truth (not spoken by the article writer Mesnick) is that the four AG's have filed suit, that the President does NOT have authority to sell government property (aka control of internet domain names) to a PRIVATE CORPORATION (yep, we love and trust those Big Capitalist Corporations) without the express approval of Congress. THAT is what the four AGs are filing suit in Federal Court over.
If this action is denied by the courts, then the President (and the President alone) will have the power (by precedent) to sell any government property, at any time, for any reason, with absolutely no checksum.
Then again, why do you think they are putting millions of acres of land into National Parks? Building the bank account to spend from, once they can set this precedent and get Congress out of the way.
We won't even talk about ICANN buying control of the internet, the possibility of a hostile world power then buying them in the future, etc. Yeah, we've never had a gripe about China or their Human Rights issues (or their great desire to filter and oversee its content).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
It's a private corporation with many stake holders (read countries)represented in their ranks whereas the US has the US to represent everybody. The change is welcome and people like you spreading vitriol are just making it take longer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We won't even discuss that feature where you then have a President able to buy-and-sell government assets without a checksum through Congress. Yeah, you'll love that when the interstates are all sold to private corporations and they turn them into toll plazas, while the FCC is sold to AT&T (who quickly deems airspace a 'chargeable commodity by the megabyte').
You are about to give this over, and don't even realize it. Four AGs do, and are trying to stop it. Foolish? No, buying Mesnick's article is foolish. Why does he think privately Capitalizing the Domain Control a good thing? What's good about losing control about ownership? What right-minded IT Manager would sell out his router-control to a 3rd party? Doesn't make sense when you think about it locally, but this is just a bigger ball of string - and one you're only getting one side of the spin on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think the ICANN transition is bad, but for different reasons
ICANN may have issues but there are plenty of representation for other stakeholders while keeping it autonomous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
The DOC is a government agency and IT manages the contract for IANA to have power. That means it is OWNED by the US Government and therefore requires Congressional approval. And since the Internet is a defacto Interstate & International subject that makes it a BIG Federal Issue, one that the Government cannot LEGALLY avoid or give away to a private entity or allow it to leave it's domain either so Congressional Approval may not be Constitutionally possible, just like the Creation of the Federal Reserve.
Had another country created the Internet, you could have some points but you don't! America has been shitting on the Constitution for so long most of everyone including you just fucking ignore it... well UNTIL it serves your fucking purposes of course!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
No, it doesn't. It has symbolic oversight over a small function of internet governance. That's it.
He advocates what most judges and AGs are supportive of, that is the SALE of Internet Domain Control from U.S. Government ownership and control to ICANN, a private CORPORATION
This isn't about selling anything. And ICANN is a nonprofit organization. "A private corporation" implies, falsely, that it's a for profit entity with share holders.
So, if unchallenged, ICANN gets control of domain names (and a few other jewels), and as a private corporation, SOMEONE (that you may or may not know who owns it, kinda like the Federal Reserve Bank) controls the world domains. Not really the internet? Well, if you're CHINA and want to own .mil, I guess it's all cool if you have gold for money, and the U.S. has debt for money. What happens when just anyone can buy .gov, .mil, etc. domain names? What happens when suddenly no one can comment on 'CHINA' if in .us ? You can't even offer up who will own ICANN in a year.
Um. You do realize that ICANN already controlled all that stuff and has for many, many years. This change changes nothing. China can't just walk in and buy ICANN. It's nonprofit entity, not a for profit one where someone can waltz in and buy it.
Why are you so supportive of this? You say this is foolish-rubbish, that four stupid AG's are countering ICANN on this 'buy out', but the actual lawsuit is why you can't buy the Grand Canyon from the government.
Again, this was already debunked by the Government Accountability Office. There is no ownership here. The Commerce Dept has *oversight* not *ownership* of a small part of internet governance. That's it. It's transfering that oversight. That's all. No property is changing hands. This has nothing to do with the Grand Canyon.
to sell a solid tech-invention of predominantly U.S. concept to a PRIVATE CORPORATION, for purposes not fully defined other than to 'get it off the back of the U.S. Government'.
Almost everything in that sentence is false. It's transfering oversight away from Commerce to ICANN, a non profit that has been around for many years. And if you think that the purpose hasn't been fully defined, you haven't paid attention to the past 2.5 years. You're simply wrong. There were detailed explanations for why this is happening. That you are unaware of them speaks more to your ignorance than anything else.
Lots of foolishness in this article, either that, or obviously there's something Mesnick isn't really telling us about why such a sale would be 'good for the internet', that not one other person has pointed out so far, in over 20-years of trying (and failing) to make this happen.
Uh, I did explain it, in great detail, many times. As have many others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
https://www.icann.org/policy#staff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tell us how you really feel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
How effective was that UN effort to stop the genocide in Darfur? I missed that amazing UN effort to stop war in Iraq, Syria, etc.
You see, blowing off steam about how 'it is so much wiser to have a large body of various interests manage a critical function' looks a lot like Darfur. Paralyzation without recourse is just as likely as action with effect.
You can roll your eyes all you want to - until you can show me how the EU works, or Brexit hurt, or the UN helps (you must have missed that part about absolute corruption there, came out in recent news stories), you will not sell all of us on the spin.
YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY WHY SELLING CONTROL IS BETTER THAN KEEPING IT!
You have utterly failed to address why this violation of Federal Law (President side-stepping Congressional Approval of government assets) is a 'good thing'.
And, once again, I iterate, 'If we've done the bulk of the work in the U.S. to create the Internet, and we have proven we are fair in controlling the internet domains as a government function, then why is selling to a private corporation advantageous?'
If you think having a Federal Reserve Bank is better than conducting monetary work through your own Treasury, you do not know as much as your eye-rolling behavior suggests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
1)The world does NOT consist of ONLY the USA, Nor does it revolve around us like we think it does a lot of times. There are other people in the world too.
2) if you have read ANY post on the subject, you would know that the USGovt is in charge of the IANA IN NAME ONLY so... as has been pointed out Numerous times, severing that link is for the betterment of EVERYONE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
I guess it will be a great 'oops, we didn't see that coming' moment in the future. If it works without incident, it will be hailed as an 'Obama Legacy', and if it fails, due to the timing right at the moment of elections, it will be passed-on to the next President as 'their utter failure'.
It sets very bad precedents in terms of unchecked government asset sales, it is without comparable equivalent - at no time has the U.S. surrendered this level of control over anything they originally had it in, and in the end, the question will be 'did your position just establish a precedent for the future sale of the Grand Canyon to private interests and the worldwide tyrannical control of the internet domains to forces with 'Great Firewall of China' mentality, or have you merely played 'pass-the-buck' and taken this responsibility off of the U.S. Government?
Time will only tell, but I know one thing - if keeping it is nothing more than status quo, and selling it with benign results is just more of the 'status quo', and there is a 1-in-3 chance of loss of internet freedom to tyrannical events (and I'm talking downstream, later, AFTER ICANN owns it all), then tell me one thing:
What is being gained by this sale-transfer, that is so beneficial that you are this passionate about it?
As for the inference that non-profit equates to 'good for all mankind', you probably need to look up what non-profit really means, it means the balance sheet is balanced without gains, or profits, it doesn't mean that it does good, or that it was ordained by some god, it means that its balance sheet is balanced without profit - nothing more.
As I've said a couple of times already, 'the U.N. is non-profit', how do you feel about moving to Darfur, Syria or Iraq right now? Funny, I thought you were implying that non-profit = saintly, when in reality, it just means a bunch of people making money pretending to be doing good for mankind. My error.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
the Government provides for ways of foreign agencies and interests to sit in on all sorts of things that affect other nations.
Additionally, to just adhere to the claim that there is no Chinese interests even if there are no Chinese to be found is stupid as well. Why in the fuck would China have no interest? If they don't have any interest then they are even dumber than I think they are now!
He might be on target for everything he said but the general idea is solid! Nations wheel and deal in all sorts of ways and behind closed doors. This is one of the Reasons that George Washington in his Farewell Address recommended a very limited level of interaction with Foreign states, because no matter how you slice the pie. The more a foreign state is involved with your economy the more POWER that foreign state has over YOU!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
That is where you and Mike are dead fucking wrong. There is a Government Contract for the IANA's powers you need to go and read up on its history.
Like most others, flat uninformed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What I've learned today...
- Multiple socks will show up and argue the same faulty points, claiming its a conspiracy.
- People who don't understand something will assume the worst possible imaginary outcome. (CHINA WILL CENSOR ALL THE TITTIES OFF THE INTERNET!!!)
- If you don't have facts to work with, misspell the authors name repetitively and pray that you'll finally be the sock who pushes him over the edge into losing it and ranting like you do.
- There is always that one poster who will link to some unrelated story, demanding coverage & setting the stage to support yet another wild theory.
- There are always more nutters who will charge in with their Cruz given expertise, on something the Grandpa Munster looking dipshit who shut down the government to prove he was a badass & fucked over many people, gave them.
vade et caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super aures tuos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That's not what's happening so, we're golden.
"Four AGs do, and are trying to stop it"
Or, the other AGs in the country understand the issue and don't wish to use it as a grandstanding gesture in an election year, unlike the ignoramuses who are doing that?
"(who quickly deems airspace a 'chargeable commodity by the megabyte')."
I think the FAA would have something to say about that.
"Mesnick's article is foolish"
You really want to check the name before you keep misspelling it. It's embarrassing since it's at the top of the page you're writing on. But, it speaks volumes about your attention to facts.
"Doesn't make sense when you think about it locally"
Well, since this is not a local issue, luckily the people who understand it are talking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But:
Well, the UN is non-profit and multicultural, albeit not a true 'company' (though, they do have a charter).
Now, ask yourself, if you were in Syria right now, or Darfur, or Northern Iraq, do you think you'd have just as much faith in the U.N. then, considering the minimal (if any) help they had given you to this point?
It really depends on which side of the 'transaction' you are standing. If it helps your position, you are for it, if it hurts your position, you are against it. If you can't see how it could potentially affect you, you are not informed enough about it, and need to see the issues at stake from someone not about to benefit or directly be injured by it.
Personally, I don't see any potential real benefit from it that doesn't already exist; I see a myriad of ways we can be injured (as a nation, as a world, etc.) from it, and when the same guys that often 'down-talk' corporations and capitalism are the same ones lined up on the side of 'yes, sell it!', then I also get instant 'red flags' saying that something is NOT being said, that probably should be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Information.
There's no justification for a truly international resource utilised by every nation on the planet to be under American control, either. Certainly not one that's ever been stated without some sort of fiction attached, anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Information.
As things stand the Internet is US Owned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
Then again, I'm sure you've never misspelled a name, either. I acquiesce to your perfectness, though do not aspire to it. I find I do make mistakes, but really try to see forward enough to not make blatantly obvious ones that will actually matter to me in the future. Misspelling Masnick's name will not change the world. Have you given the IANA-ICANN issue this much reflection even, then you would have seen a number of major problems that have not been resolved in discussion - and instead of address them, ,you choose to ignore them.
Much like I ignored the spelling of his name, between sleepy viewpoint and lack of coffee, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The judge should toss the lawsuit on the basis of them having waited too long to file for the injunction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Information.
If this were to go international, then it has to be formulated under treaty or as the turds say... approved by Congress. Of course anything congress does these days is of no comfort because they are one of the worst and most ignored corruptions in existence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This has been working for years and will continue to work the same way. But if you want to whine, you really missed the ball when domain name registration was basically gifted to a private for-profit corporation which has made insane amounts of money ever since. (And has generally sucked in every incarnation.)
But the biggest fucking hoot is watching the right wingers cry and stamp their feet about the damn Federal government fully privatizing some function that it really no longer (and hardly ever did) have a link to anyway. OMFG. They will privatize the military, police, prisons, social security... just anything. But lol this scraping the name off the glass on the door of a disused office in the corner of the building no one ever goes to is just such an incomprehensible transgression of... well, something. I thinks it's USA! USA! USA! USA! That's probably it.
Oh, and the references to parkland are just endearing. Hey, that's the land that should be available to home and tourism developers, mining and drilling interests, and random moron ranchers for free. And someone might give it to China!
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. IANA/ICANN boards and working groups and the stakeholders they listen to are not going to change. It's already a government/private/globalist conspiracy. You haver already been soaking in it. For decades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
That's because it's not a name, it's a nickname for use on the internet. I presume Skeeter isn't the name you were born with either (though you are as annoying as one).
Mike Masnick, however, uses his full given name so if you're going to whine about him it would be courteous to get that small fact correct.
"Have you given the IANA-ICANN issue this much reflection even"
Yes, and I think your paranoid lunatic rantings do not address the version I've seen in this reality. Perhaps instead of making yourself look foolish, you could explain why the scenarios you're so afraid of are likely, because the evidence doesn't support them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Information.
I rescind my admiration of your absolute perfection. Me thinks you're just in this for the 'internationalism' of it all, or possibly the 'anti-Americanism' of it.
I know that all the cliches (from 'Great Firewall of China' and 'North Korean Blackout' to just general 'locally-nepotic favoritism) won't change your viewpoint; but to hear someone profess 'internationalism' as their 'main driving reason' makes me instantly envision 190+ nations' representatives sitting in a big round room, and appointing the most-heinous offenders to a committee on human rights, and thinking that they have good intent and good will in their hearts, as media reports of their absolute sociopathic greed airs worldwide.
Sorry PaulT, just can't get on board with internationalism with you. Personally, I was always taught 'if you can't do it right in a small scale, whatever in your right mind makes you think you can take it to a larger scale and perfect what you couldn't do right locally first?'
Obviously, it takes a village to raise an unrealist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If there is a case to be made, it must be heard, even if the plaintiff is clear to lose the case. It would be insane to support the idea that the courts cannot act on something because it was already "Signed, Sealed, & Delivered"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Information.
What about the rest of the world who fear that the US will do the same? Do their concerns not count?
"Like many other things of late, America does only one thing... fuck shit up!"
All the more reason for the internet to not be in their control then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
I agree here, people need to respect others names. Do not butcher them and avoid making fun of their names as well. It is juvenile to do so. There are plenty of other ways to disparage people if you have to get belligerent about things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
Have you heard of google? Should not be hard to find. Let also you do another solid and provide you a snippet of information as well.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) currently performs the IANA functions, on behalf of the United States Government, through a contract with NTIA.
Didja hapin to notice the part where it sez "ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT?"
Ima thinking a whole lot-o-you fellers are dumber than a bakwuds redneck for missing that wun!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That being said... Each nation should 100% manage their own fucking internet and provide a connection on their own to other countries. I would prefer for America and other countries to get the fuck out of each others business!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shame on you - give us the facts
(i) The US government really has not exerted any influence on the process to date - so it's meaningless; and
(ii) If we don't transfer, then countries like Russia and China will continue to push to take control in a much worse manner.
But I think its fair to ask about the details of the organization who will be receiving control (or however you want to describe this transaction). Do the 'alarmists' have a point? Who will be taking over from the government? Who will now have ultimate control? Will foreign actors be able to take control of the process?
I decided to look.
This post doesn't tell me anything about it. So I went to the link in the post: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160610/07561834679/yes-getting-us-government-out-managing-intern et-domain-governance-is-good-thing.shtml
Shockingly, no answers here either.
All we get is this:
"A key part of the Commerce Department's "transition" plan was that it would basically erase the almost entirely imaginary link between IANA and the Commerce Department, but only if a plan was created that kept IANA independent and not as a part of the UN or any organization that would lead to mostly government control, as opposed to what everyone (unfortunately) likes to call a "multistakeholder process" (which just means not just government in the room). And with that plan in place, the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) has now come out in support of this plan."
OK - but what is the plan? We know you (Commerce Department) like it, but we've also all learned that we can't always trust the government to make good decisions. So what are the details of this plan?
So I followed a link in that post to a "great and detailed post about why this transition is a good thing"
https://readplaintext.com/heres-why-we-should-go-through-with-the-iana-transition-f07d36c42bb7 #.hjgcndo91
Guess what - same problem. Good history - but other than saying that the Commerce Department has approved the plan it has no details about it.
So I followed another link. This one took me to a megalong pdf of the actual proposal. It's long and its boring and I haven't the time to go through it. But until someone does go through it - you can't say that the people criticizing the deal aren't right. If the only defense to their claims is that 'the Obama administration says its a good plan' - well, that's no defense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Shame on you - give us the facts
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/combined_iana_stewardship_transition_assessment _report.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I personally defend the four AGs not for who they are, but for the mere fact that this action is illegal and sets hard precedence for the President, alone, to conduct sale-of-government-assets to anyone he chooses, at anytime, without the checks-and-balances of Congress. This is FIRST AND FOREMOST.
Secondly, with the U.S. (via DARPA) having built the internet (essentially), I see this as an American invention that became standardized (like the light bulb and the telephone), worldwide, but having been based and originally controlled in the U.S., it was akin to allowing 'philanthropic use' of our creation that suddenly the world sees as 'their right' to take, and you are seeing just that here, and now, with many Americans wishing to give it away as a sign of 'international good will'. The problem with 'international control' is 'international differences' that won't stop. Yes they want a say, yes they want a conglomerate of nations controlling it, but what no one is saying, is that with multiple nations 'controlling' anything, most often (as with the EU or the UN), a conglomeration becomes a frozen quagmire that becomes inept and frozen in its own bureaucracy.
Lastly, my concern is for this going into 'laundered, trafficking mode' by first entering the 'private corporation' phase first. You see, one minute you hear advocates say 'we think this should be INTERNATIONALLY CONTROLLED', then they turn right around and say 'don't you realize, ICANN is a non-profit, private corporation' (seldom putting all that together for you into: ICANN is a non-profit, international, private corporation).
Suddenly (if you are wise enough), you see that this is a private, international corporation where it is easy to hide many things. Private corporations that are not traded don't get issue an SEC-10k, they don't have to declare much actually, and just like the Federal Reserve Bank (also a 'private corporation'), you can't validate who really controls it. Non-profit doesn't equate to holy, it merely means they balance their books so as profit = 0 (Net Income after taxes is zero). FYI, most trucking companies in America today could actually qualify for 'non-profit' status, this doesn't mean that they have 'good will' towards men, just that they aren't making a profit for the fiscal year.
All this said, in my old business mind, there is no advantage to 'sell this' (rid yourself of it, give it away, whatever term you feel cozy with) control to an external interest for. So why do so many think this is the right way to go? They aren't saying, or if they do, it sounds loopy and they can't justify what they are saying, as there are no precedents in anything comparative that makes sense.
At no other time have we been so 'philanthropic' of something we own, for no reason, with no gain, where the receiver cannot show a gain either, by acquiring it. That you have a majority on the side waving flags and offering fanfare for this ICANN acquisition to happen is sheer fantasy, and yet it is happening. Again, I ask 'WHY', and hear crickets of logic saying 'we can't answer you, but we did stay at the Cozy Inn last night, and that makes us correct and any that dare voice dissent shall instantly be labeled fools'.
I've seen spin, and I've seen credibility assassination, but this is pure pink rainbows without logic to explain it. In a nutshell, its quite simple - something else is underpinning why this is so damn important, and not one who knows is saying it. The rest are sheep in the field with big team pennants proudly supporting their fellow sheep on a topic they don't understand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Information.
You might want to reload your comments, as several others have pointed out TD's own articles that also highlight the various questions over this IANA-ICANN transition you espouse is so good.
That China has directly said they fully intend to continue filtering with their Firewall is rather succinct.
As for your continued addressment of valid points with non-facts (you really haven't addressed a single point made, other than I misspelled Masnick's name), you can't give us one functioning example of a multi-national entity doing something better at regulating a world function, that a single nation couldn't do better.
I offer the example, that if I am a national citizen, would I rather have the U.N. defend me, or as an American citizen, have solely the U.S. government or military defend me? I would opt for the later.
I ask you, which do you have more personal faith in to protect your rights, the U.N., the E.U., or your individual nation? Now, being as I can easily guess your answer (if you have any sense), why would you want an international organization defend the internet structure?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am definitely concerned as to why Mike has is so for letting the IANA go while calling a Contract an Imaginary thing.
As for the comment about no one likely finding any government authority on the subject I sure found it pretty fast. I am thinking they are intentionally "not seeing" things to massage something. My opinion is that the Globalist are up to something... well they are always up to something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Information.
And whether I like America's fucking shit up or not, it is still no justification for this transition. If the US wants to offer up the Contract to a PUBLIC or even an INTERNATIONAL agency that is fine, but the Contract MUST be made with the US Government and of course approved by Congress. In any case the Government should never have allowed any private entity to manage jack and fucking shit!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It is one thing to have an 'international' convention, or various 'international clearing houses' for given operations (whether it is currency exchange, communications or border treaties), but it is another to totally relinquish national control or identity to the 'borg' of internationalism and think it will 'take good care of you'.
This is like saying a kindergarten teacher can control her classroom, so let's put 12,000 6-year olds into a football stadium - since conglomeration is so much better. It makes no sense. Internationalism is the off-loading of local responsibility (that probably wasn't doing so well, anyhow) into a giant melting pot of massive troubles that are almost-assuredly going to be worse once you put them together.
The E.U. was a 'great idea' (yet it is straining under its own ambiguity to stay together, amidst corruption, poor leadership and heavy taxation), the U.N. was a 'great idea' (yet it was declared 'functionally, but irreparably corrupt'), and yet with perpetual 'put them all together into a larger structure and watch them fail like falling dominoes', we just can't take a hint.
If you aren't getting the governance you want now, what makes you think you'll get better governance when you put even more bureaucracy over anything? This is simply 'bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake', and has a track record of 0-wins, 100-losses. Why do we insist 'it's going to work THIS TIME!'?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What I've learned today...
I hate Ted, but if he is right, he is right.
- Multiple socks will show up and argue the same faulty points, claiming its a conspiracy.
This will happen on BOTH sides so that is always a given, it is a complete waste to time to even bring it up!
- People who don't understand something will assume the worst possible imaginary outcome. (CHINA WILL CENSOR ALL THE TITTIES OFF THE INTERNET!!!)
That door swings BOTH ways. For yea-sayers they just imagine that things will be better regardless off what they understand.
I get the impression you are hating Cruz only because someone told you that you needed to not like him. And that is okay, if you don't have a problem with renting your mind out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If at first you do not succeed, Democrat Harder!... even if it makes the problem worse!" This is also true for the Republicans, but just not AS badly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
Aside from that, that is a VERY dangerous move, as the USGovt cannot be trusted with ANYTHING having to do with the internet, as it is a) incapable to do due to resources, or more importantly technical reasons. and b) cannot be impartial when administering the internet. (What happens when a war breaks out between the US and another state?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: :"Just a guess..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Elect better ones
I live in Arizona. We call it "The State of Maricopa County" because all the money and all the politics originate in that one county - with Phoenix at its center.
The rest of the state is not red, not batshit crazy, and not high on their own gasses. Unfortunately through decades the powers in Phoenix wrest more and more resources from the rest of the state to expand their power base.
But hey, it's pretty cool for you to say "Elect better ones." I'll be repeating that to you in November ;)
Ehud
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Awesome. I'll add non-profit to the list of things (like IANA, ICANN, internet governance, property, and the like) that you don't understand at all, but have no problem spouting off ignorantly about.
Educate yourself. Otherwise you look really, really dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, when did I call the contract imaginary? I never did. The contract exists. But what does that have to do with anything?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
Because I pointed out many examples of knowledgeable people explaining why you're wrong that this is a "psycho left wing" story? Or are you claiming that the Cato Institute is a psycho left wing organization too? Mercatus also? I mean, really...
The DOC is a government agency and IT manages the contract for IANA to have power. That means it is OWNED by the US Government and therefore requires Congressional approval
This is false. There is a contract, but the DOC has every right to transition the authority away from itself. There is no property interest in the function itself, as has been noted by the GAO. You're simply wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
Where a few that have nukes have more power than others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
No, it doesn't. Because no asset is being sold.
it is without comparable equivalent - at no time has the U.S. surrendered this level of control over anything they originally had it in
No, it doesn't. Do you even understand what the IANA function is and what kind of "control" the US gov't actually has over it? Because it certainly doesn't seem like it.
the worldwide tyrannical control of the internet domains to forces with 'Great Firewall of China' mentality, or have you merely played 'pass-the-buck' and taken this responsibility off of the U.S. Government?
Again, you should learn something before you continue to spout pure ignorance.
What is being gained by this sale-transfer, that is so beneficial that you are this passionate about it?
As I've explained MULTIPLE TIMES and which you apparently refuse to read or understand, China and Russia *have* been trying to gain control over more internet governance, using the UN (via the ITU). What this transfer does is vastly undermine that process, and make sure that the ICANN multistakeholder process remains in place. That takes away power from ALL governments. The ITU setup would be gov't controlled internet. With the ICANN multistakeholder process, it allows a variety of interests, mainly *actual internet engineers who understand this stuff* to have a strong say in keeping the internet open.
You don't seem to know the first thing about internet governance. So you might want to educate yourself before sounding even stupider.
As for the inference that non-profit equates to 'good for all mankind', you probably need to look up what non-profit really means, it means the balance sheet is balanced without gains, or profits, it doesn't mean that it does good, or that it was ordained by some god, it means that its balance sheet is balanced without profit - nothing more.
Again, that is not what non-profit means at all. You really ought to educate yourself.
As I've said a couple of times already, 'the U.N. is non-profit', how do you feel about moving to Darfur, Syria or Iraq right now? Funny, I thought you were implying that non-profit = saintly, when in reality, it just means a bunch of people making money pretending to be doing good for mankind. My error.
The UN is not a nonprofit organization. You really ought to learn a little about what you're spouting off about.
Also, if you're so scared of the UN, then you SHOULD SUPPORT THIS TRANSITION because it STOPS the attempt to have the UN control internet governance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You don't understand how the internet works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Information.
-Bill Clinton administration approved to transfer control from DARPA to private sector and DOC recommended a NEW private non-profit to administer it.
-DOC holds the contract, and DOC is an agency created by the government.
Um. Your knowledge of DNS/IANA history is lacking. No Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds? You don't know what you're talking about. There's a reason why we needed ICANN, and it was because the Postel/Reynolds "hobby" solution wasn't working. And ICANN, while it has its problems, at least maintained the multistakeholder process that makes sure there ISN'T gov't control over the process, just as it had been for decades before, despite your misleading version of history.
And since the US Constitution NEVER gave Congress the power to GIVE agencies rule/law making power, the retarded repukes from the 4 states actually DO have a point.
If your concern is about agency rulemaking... then, uh, you've got bigger fish to fry. That boat has sailed. A long, long time ago. You may not like it, but this is hardly the point at which to bring that up.
Congress DOES have to approve of the transition.
Not according to basically everyone who understands this. Congress only needs to approve it if the root file was property, but it's already been determined that it's not. This is not about a property transfer, but oversight authority.
Kinda funny to see people claiming to be "right wing" or "conservative" whining about the gov't getting out of regulating something. What's up?
Additionally, TD is sure all hot and bothered over this subject. I am beginning to think TD has some sort of connection to this and cannot be objective about this.
When you've got nothing else, I guess go with the conspiracy theories.
The American Government serves out the stewardship of the IANA through a contract for management which means the US does in Fucking FACT OWN IT!
Except the legal experts already said that's wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Information.
You keep bringing this up as if it has anything at all to do with the IANA transition. It does not.
you can't give us one functioning example of a multi-national entity doing something better at regulating a world function, that a single nation couldn't do better.
Here's the problem. You seem to think that ICANN is a "multi-national entity." Again, ICANN has a multi-stakeholder process that means nations actually have LESS control, because non-nation entities are also part of the process. This is why the ICANN/IANA process includes actual engineers, who are protecting *against* gov't interference in these matters.
If you want gov't interference away from the internet, you should support the transfer.
I ask you, which do you have more personal faith in to protect your rights, the U.N., the E.U., or your individual nation?
As if those are the only options. You are truly, truly uninformed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But:
The IANA function is not about censorship, and nothing in the current Commerce Department setup has anything to do with whether or not the internet is censored.
Keeping the process in ICANN (which is where it's been for well over a decade) means that actual internet engineers, who absolutely favor an open internet, have tremendous influence on the process. This is a good thing.
Will they be in defense of freedom? Local rule? I doubt it.
Why do you doubt it? This is how ICANN has mostly worked all along. Why would that change now?
Or a company takeover?
What company takeover?
Durn.
Is that an argument?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Since when is privatization a good thing?
The government continues to change the definition of existing laws to fit their narrative (e.g., is Uber a "Common Carrier?"). While Net Neutrality has not caused the sky to fall ...what's it done for your cable bill or your cable box? Again, rules originally written for telephone companies were interpreted to apply to land-based and wireless Internet services. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) developed the system of protocols used to link computers (i.e., TCP/IP). This was not a nonprofit or global effort. But's let's move beyond the 1970s and say that the internet was developed for the betterment of the world and redefine "public" and/or "government" as "globally inclusive."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
These AGs are exactly right on a point I'm surprised you don't get. It's not subtle--the internet is a product of the ingenuity of the United States. No other country or organization has a leg to stand on if they don't like the U.S. controlling this creation of the U.S.
The president is, without authority, giving away an asset of the United States.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
Sure it's right to not trust whoever controls the allocation of domains, be it government, non-profit, or (even more) for-profit, and maybe if the Internet was built using modern computer science we won't be having this discussion.
But that said IANA, not the US government, always has been the ones handing out domain names and they've been doing a great job at it. They remain in the background and the Internet just seems to work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But:
There are two responses to this:
1. We were never the good guys on censorship. And we're not now. For example, just this week, Twitter decided to block the account of a journalist who has spent the past seven years covering Turkey. Why? Because the government of Turkey wants him silenced, and asked Twitter, and they acquiesced. This isn't the first time Twitter's done this. And Facebook, and Yahoo, and Google, and many other American corporations have done the same.
2. Nothing in this transition gives ICANN or anybody else more power to censor than they already posses. Nothing. Country A can pressure Corporation B, Country C can install firewalls, Country D can pressure Country E -- but they can do all of that today.
It's become abundantly clear that many people commenting here, particularly the hysterical ones, haven't got the slightest idea what DNS does, what domain names are, why they exist, and why the 'net doesn't actually need DNS or even domain/hostnames in order to function. All they see, in their jingoist xenophobic fantasies, is a black President (oh. racist. I forgot racist) doing something with those foreign people who might be brown or yellow or something non-white, who might speak different languages, who might be from other countries, and they're freaked out by it. Too freaked out to think. Too freaked out to reason. Too freaked out to learn.
Those of us who've actually built the Internet and who run parts of it AND who have fought censorship our entire careers aren't concerned about this. We're smarter than you, we're vastly more knowledgeable and experienced, and we're not worried. Therefore you shouldn't be either, particularly because there are plenty of other real concerns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This is what some (R) congress critterz want to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Because we've done this to the fullest degree possible with current protocols. But in the meantime IANA will continue (not take over) the handling of international top-level domains (which US corporations treat as their own) while giving every country their own top-level domain to manage (e.g. .us, .ca, .au, .nz, .jp)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WHO SHOULD "RECEIVE" THE IANA?... AND WHY?
.
Please!... ne emails!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Information.
You haven't made any other point that's backed by a shred of evidence. Perhaps if you'd furnish us with some of that evidence rather than a clear misreading of verifiable facts there might be a conversation? Your other ramblings are so far off-base it's hard to know where else to start.
"you can't give us one functioning example of a multi-national entity doing something better at regulating a world function, that a single nation couldn't do better"
Because you haven't asked me to, for one. I attacked the low hanging fruit of your inability to correctly address the person you're talking about because that was the only solid thing to address.
But, the real question is - why do you think that a single nation needs to control a truly international resource? Could it be because you happen to have been spawned in that specific country, or is there some actual solid reason? Somehow I think that if it were, say, the UK who were in charge your opinion would be different.
"That China has directly said they fully intend to continue filtering with their Firewall is rather succinct."
Nobody disagrees. What's in disagreement is what the hell that has to do with the issue being discussed, other than baseless paranoia, of course.
"I can easily guess your answer"
That's the great this about the paranoid. They don't let facts enter the discussion when they can just attack what they presume someone else's position is rather than listen to facts. You'll "win" this conversation, of course, because you'll either not listen to what I'm actually saying in response or pretend that your version of events is better for whatever reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I think the ICANN transition is bad, but for different reasons
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
You may not be able to fix the stupid part, but you can certainly fix the ignorant part: LEARN. Start by learning from those of us who've been dealing with this stuff for decades and know far more about it than you are ever going to know. Sit down. Shut up. Listen. And try, within the limits of your mind, to comprehend.
I grow tired of listening to the clueless rants of people who know nothing of the history, the politics, the economics, and most importantly, the technical issues in play here. You add nothing to the conversation but noise, and yes, you deserve to be insulted and abused until you can do better.
Because I'm a generous person and look down on you with a mixture of contempt and pity, I'll be nice enough to give you a place to start. Go look up the ARPAnet hosts.txt file and try to understand why we stopped using it. Understand in detail. Understand in depth. Then go read RFC 882 and RFC 883 in their entirety.
If you're not willing to take these rudimentary steps to educate yourself, then please do the world a favor: be silent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WHO SHOULD "RECEIVE" THE IANA?... AND WHY?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Embarrasing AGs
Here in Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt has been doing a bang up job of embarrassing us for the last 6 years. This frankly comes as little surprise. If there's an opportunity for him to charge headfirst into a stupid, losing battle, he's often the first guy to sign up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Embarrasing AGs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I thank most have this all wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I get it. They have no standing. They have no argument. They lost and for a good reason.
It's not subtle--the internet is a product of the ingenuity of the United States.
It was the ingenuity of a number of individuals, many in the US, and the control over it will remain in the US. Whether the US government is involved is meaningless.
No other country or organization has a leg to stand on if they don't like the U.S. controlling this creation of the U.S.
The US hasn't controlled it basically since the beginning. It's always been engineers doing it. This move keeps that. It keeps governments out.
The president is, without authority, giving away an asset of the United States.
This is just flat out wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I thank most have this all wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: WHO SHOULD "RECEIVE" THE IANA?... AND WHY?
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For everyone who thinks the US invented & runs the net...
If the Internet was run by the US, they would still be paying huge bills to the winning bidder who has had billions in cost overruns to deliver our first terminal with acoustic coupler. People would demand that the project be dumped, but the Congressman whos home state has most of the workers will keep the project alive even though its pointless now. Another nation would be on their 30th upgrade to their entire network making ours look that much more laughable.
I'm often confused by people who scream how the government can't do anything right, but somehow think they should retain control (that they never had) and turn it into another bloated government project that they would protest against.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hey, Mike...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150623/17321931439/icanns-war-whois-privacy.shtml
https: //www.techdirt.com/articles/20120320/17474318177/icann-confirms-that-its-going-to-make-it-easier-gov ernments-to-seize-domains-around-globe.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150707/12264631576/i canns-threat-to-privacy-is-not-theoretical.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141117/175501291 74/internet-society-says-oh-hell-no-to-icanns-plan-un-security-council-internet.shtml
Just saying, and those are some of the first ones that pop up. I only found this current article by switching the icann search to "by date".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So, you haven't a clue what this is about. Cool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Each nation should 100% manage their own fucking internet"
That was what I meant to reply to. Anyone saying this on this issue hasn't clue what they're objecting to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
Bad choice of word there. You should have used the word facts. Once you start declaring that you write the truth, you open yourself up to all sorts of failure.
Stick to the facts and your opinions or viewpoints and leave the truth to others more suited to it, such as religious and philosophical debates. In today's world, what is the truth is considered by many to be quite relative.
So please, please, do not describe yourselves as writing about the truth.
A small correction for you, you have some understanding of the issues here, but there is no way you have complete understanding of the issues here, so don't declare that you have. You just make yourself out as much a fool as all the various fools we have as politicians and leaders around the place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Information.TROLL
At first I thought maybe they were earnest but with every post the reality began to sink in; this is BS, it can't be taught or, more likely, it is jerking off as it piles up responses to the idiocy it spews.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mesnick Missing the Point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Another Psycho Left Wing Post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]