The United States to give away oversight of the Internet to ICANN on October 1st, 2016.

[Arkain2K]

America to give up control of the internet
9 June 2016

The US administration on Thursday endorsed a plan to cede its oversight of the gatekeeper of Internet addresses to the broader online community.

Commerce Department assistant secretary for communications and information Lawrence Strickling told AFP that the proposal from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) meets the criteria set by the US administration.

The plan aims to maintain Internet governance under a 'multi-stakeholder' model which avoids control of the online ecosystem by any single governmental body.

'The Internet's multi-stakeholder community has risen to the challenge we gave them to develop a transition proposal that would ensure the Internet's domain name system will continue to operate as seamlessly as it currently does,' Strickling said.

US oversight of ICANN had 'irritated' some governments, which used what was Strickling depicted as a mainly clerical responsibility to vie for greater control of the Internet.

The plan comes in response to the US government's March 2014 announcement that it would transition 'stewardship' of online domain name system technical functions from the Commerce Department to a body that would fairly represent all parties with interests in a vibrant and healthy Internet.

Motivation behind the transition is to 'preserve a free and open Internet,' according to Strickling.

Concern has been expressed over the years that a perception that the United States is holding the reins of the Internet could prompt other countries to form their regional 'domains,' creating a potential for fragmentation.

The proposal crafted over the course of two years with input from businesses, academia, governments and others was endorsed by ICANN in March.

Strickling declined to call his agency's report endorsing the plan an 'approval,' referring to it instead as a favorable 'assessment.'

The proposed new system is being tested in parallel with the existing one to see if it works on a practical level.

The plan will not affect how users interact online, but will turn over the technical supervision of the online address system to ICANN itself, with a system of checks and balances so no single entity can exert control over the Internet, according to officials involved in the process.

Officials say the US government supervision is symbolic and dates back to the creation of the Internet.

Yet ICANN officials maintain the new governance model will instill confidence around the world in the Internet's independence.

If the US government formally approves the plan, then a contract between ICANN and the US government will be allowed to naturally expire on September 30.

ICANN board chairman Stephen Crocker told AFP in an earlier interview that he did not expect Internet users to notice any change.

But some US lawmakers have been less than enthusiastic about the plan.

Last year, Republican Senator John Thune warned at a hearing that a privatized ICANN could become 'accountable to no one.'

Strickling said his agency is prepared for discussions with lawmakers to get them comfortable with the plan.

'To the extent that people think the US has been the guardian of the free and open Internet, I think, overall, we have relied on the community,' Strickling said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...cy-endorses-plan-cede-Internet-oversight.html

 

[panamaican]

They've been talking about this for a little while and I still don't have a firm grasp on the pros and cons.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Interesting. We are seeing a rise in europe of nations trying to pull in the reigns of control with regards to the internet and Canada trying to implement subsidized net access as a necessity to human living -- and we know China, Mid East, North Korea would rather elect a gay female than allow Net controls open to the public. So its refreshing to see a US liberal initiative that actual tries to reduce its control over something, even if it just is domain naming.

While i think the government should never censor the net (aside from child pornogrpahy and preditory phishing / hacking) this independent control board needs to have some fail safes implemented - namely accountability measures and less bureaucracy.

 

[RhinoRush]

They've been talking about this for a little while and I still don't have a firm grasp on the pros and cons.

That's never stopped you before.

 

[panamaican]

That's never stopped you before.

 

[JosephDredd]

Is this more likely to uphold or erode net neutrality?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Still reading through this stuff, but here is a pros/cons evaluation:

THE TRANSITION: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2016/02/19/the-transition-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

 

[mrln242]

Why do we have cops on the internet anyway. We are slowly going from an oligarchy to communism for sure.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'm assuming that's sarcasm.

Someone should have told the mods (I thought it pretty blatant).

 

[Arkain2K]

America to hand off Internet in under two months
By Rudy Takala
8/16/16​

The Department of Commerce is set to hand off the final vestiges of American control over the Internet to international authorities in less than two months, officials have confirmed.

The department will finalize the transition effective Oct. 1, Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling wrote on Tuesday, barring what he called "any significant impediment."

The move means the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, which is responsible for interpreting numerical addresses on the Web to a readable language, will move from U.S. control to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a multistakeholder body based in Los Angeles that includes countries such as China and Russia.

Critics of the move, most prominently Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, have pointed out the agency could be used by totalitarian governments to shut down the Web around the globe, either in whole or in part.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/america-to-hand-off-internet-in-under-two-months/article/2599521

 

[caxias]

I think Arkain2K is a paid troll. He is too dedicated and spend too much time on Sherdog.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Arkain2K is one the best TS the WR has had in the last 4 years.

 

[Arkain2K]

Last Call for the Open Internet
A two-year effort to find an alternative to U.S. oversight of Icann has produced only uncertainty.
By L. Gordon Crovitz
Aug. 14, 2016

“The survival of the internet as we know it is at risk,” declares this year’s Republican platform. President Obama “has launched a campaign . . . to subjugate it to agents of government. . . . He has unilaterally announced America’s abandonment of the international internet by surrendering U.S. control. . . . He threw the internet to the wolves, and they—Russia, China, Iran, and others—are ready to devour it.”

Congress used the power of the purse for the past two years to block the White House from spending resources to carry out its plan to end U.S. protection of the internet, but the Obama administration plans to do so immediately after midnight on Sept. 30, when the spending ban expires.

The U.S. has long protected the open internet through its contract with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, ensuring that the root zone of the internet functions smoothly, without meddling by authoritarian regimes or abuses by Icann, which has monopoly control over highly lucrative web domains such as .com.

A two-year effort to find an alternative to U.S. oversight has produced only uncertainty—and a growing list of challenges by Congress and companies if the administration carries out its plan.

In June, companies including Disney, 21st Century Fox and NBC Universal wrote congressional leaders warning that “significant questions remain regarding Icann’s current readiness” to operate without U.S. oversight. They gave as an example a top-level country domain from a “failed state” being “redelegated to an entity affiliated with a sophisticated piracy and counterfeit organization, a multinational criminal enterprise, or even a terrorist organization.” U.S. oversight to prevent such an outcome “is to be replaced with—nothing.”

Last month Assistant Commerce Secretary Lawrence Strickling tried to rebut what he called “hyperventilating hyperbole” about the risks. In the process he only confirmed the worst fears of critics.

Mr. Strickling called it a “false claim” that Icann could be moved from its U.S. legal jurisdiction, which would undermine the plan Icann submitted for how it would be held accountable as a California-based corporation. He’s wrong: Legal jurisdiction is explicitly reserved for Icann’s “Phase Two” transition plan to be decided only after the U.S. gives up control—and leverage. Ending U.S. legal jurisdiction has been the top goal for authoritarian regimes in recent Icann meetings.

He also said: “In the last couple of weeks, I have heard new concerns about the possible antitrust liability of a post-transition Icann.” They aren’t new. Courts have approved Icann’s monopoly control over the root zone only because its contract with the Commerce Department exempts it from antitrust challenge. Once the contract ends, would-be competitors could sue for a share of Icann’s hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenues. A single root zone might not survive.

Icann has a long history of abusing its monopoly power. Just this month Dot Registry LLC won a judgment against the organization for denying it new domains. An independent panel ruled Icann was “simply not credible” and had “failed to fulfill its transparency obligations.”

Last week two dozen advocacy groups, including Tech Freedom and Heritage Action, urged Congress to sue Mr. Obama if he ends the Icann contract on the ground that federal personnel and paid outside contractors worked on the plan for two years despite the spending ban.

The advocacy groups noted Mr. Obama does not have the authority on his own to transfer Icann, whose domain monopoly is worth billions of dollars, because the Constitution says Congress must approve transfers of U.S. property. Their letter, whose signatories include the first chairman of Icann, Esther Dyson, warns that the “fragile” multistakeholder model is endangered without a solid plan replacing U.S. oversight.

Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and Rep. Sean Duffy last week demanded that the Justice Department’s antitrust division investigate Icann’s recent renewal of the .com registry agreement with Verisign two years ahead of schedule. That means there can be no review of the prices monopolist Verisign charges companies for .com web addresses until 2024. This concern is exacerbated by Versign’s recent record payment to Icann of $135 million for the new .web domain.

The internet was not broken when Mr. Obama decided to fix it by ending U.S. protection. The administration naively thought crafting an alternative to U.S. oversight, which it dismissed as “largely clerical,” would be easy. By now it’s clear Mr. Obama’s solution to the nonproblem of U.S. protection is too half-baked for anyone who cares about the free and open internet.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/last-call-for-the-open-internet-1471210952

 

[Arkain2K]

U.S. ready to 'hand over' the internet's naming system
Dave Lee
18 August 2016

The US has confirmed it is finally ready to cede power of the internet’s naming system, ending the almost 20-year process to hand over a crucial part of the internet's governance.

The Domain Naming System, DNS, is one of the internet’s most important components.

It pairs the easy-to-remember web addresses - like bbc.com - with their relevant servers. Without DNS, you’d only be able to access websites by typing in its IP address, a series of numbers such as "194.66.82.10".

More by circumstance than intention, the US has always had ultimate say over how the DNS is controlled - but not for much longer.

It will give up its power fully to Icann - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - a non-profit organisation.

The terms of the change were agreed upon in 2014, but it wasn’t until now that the US said it was finally satisfied that Icann was ready to make the change.

Icann will get the “keys to the kingdom”, as one expert put it, on 1st October 2016. From that date, the US will lose its dominant voice - although Icann will remain in Los Angeles.

If anyone can, Icann?

Users of the web will not notice any difference - that’s because Icann has essentially being doing the job for years anyway.

But it’s a move that has been fiercely criticised by some US politicians as opening the door to the likes of China and Russia to meddle with a system that has always been “protected” by the US.

"The proposal will significantly increase the power of foreign governments over the Internet,” warned a letter signed by several Republican senators, including former Presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz.

Whether you think those fears are justified depends on your confidence in the ability of Icann to do its job.

It was created in 1998 to take over the task of assigning web addresses. Until that point, that job was handled by one man - Jon Postel. He was known to many as the “god of the internet”, a nod to his power over the internet, as well as his research work in creating some of the systems that underpin networking.

Mr Postel, who died not long after Icann was created, was in charge of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Administration of the IANA was contracted to the newly-formed Icann, but the US's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Department of Commerce, kept its final say over what it was able to do.

It’s that final detail that is set to change from October. No longer will the US government - through the NTIA - be able to intervene on matters around internet naming.

It rarely intervened. Most famously, it stepped in when Icann wanted to launch a new top-level domain for pornography, “.xxx”. The government wanted Icann to ditch the idea, but it eventually went ahead anyway.

From October, the “new” Icann will become an organisation that answers to multiple stakeholders who want a say over the internet. Those stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technical expertise.

Best option

“It's a big change,” remarked Prof Alan Woodward from the University of Surrey.

"It marks a transition from an internet effectively governed by one nation to a multi-stakeholder governed internet: a properly global solution for what has become a global asset."

Technically, the US is doing this voluntarily - if it wanted to keep power of DNS, it could. But the country has long acknowledged that relinquishing its control was a vital act of international diplomacy.

Other countries, particularly China and Russia, had put pressure on the UN to call for the DNS to be controlled by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union.

A treaty to do just that was on the table in 2012 - but the US, along with the UK, Canada and Australia, refused, citing concerns over human rights abuses that may arise if other countries had greater say and control over the internet and its technical foundations.

Instead, the US has used its remaining power over DNS to shift control to Icann, not the UN.

In response to worries about abuse of the internet by foreign governments, Icann said it had consulted corporate governance experts who said its the prospect of government interference was “extremely remote”.

"The community’s new powers to challenge board decisions and enforce decisions in court protect against any one party or group of interests from inappropriately influencing Icann,” the group said in a Q&A section on its website.

As for how it will change what happens on the internet, the effects will most likely be minimal for the average user.

"This has nothing to do with laws on the internet,” Prof Woodward said.

"Those still are the national laws that apply where it touches those countries.

"This is more about who officially controls the foundations of the Internet/web addresses and domain names, without which the network wouldn't function."

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Hans already did this thread, and the WR lefties mocked it into oblivion.

 

[Arkain2K]

Hans already did this thread, and the WR lefties mocked it into oblivion.

That's generally what happens when you rehash a topic from June with a more sensational thread title in August.

 

[ripskater]

The USA shouldn't be giving up this. But we have a leadership that sold it's soul to the New World Order. And the USA is on it's way down.

 

[caxias]

Arkain2K is one the best TS the WR has had in the last 4 years.

That's not the point. Some paid trolls are paid to be awesome or informative to attract more viewers.

At the end of the day, he handpick specific sources and controls the narrative. This is a strategy used by paid trolls working for governments or corporations. The fact that he's doing it so consistently is suspicious. How much free time does he have to post on Sherdog?

 

[Arkain2K]

I think Arkain2K is a paid troll. He is too dedicated and spend too much time on Sherdog.

Arkain2K is one the best TS the WR has had in the last 4 years.

That's not the point. Some paid trolls are paid to be awesome or informative to attract more viewers.

At the end of the day, he handpick specific sources and controls the narrative. This is a strategy used by paid trolls working for governments or corporations. The fact that he's doing it so consistently is suspicious.

If ya'll know any governments and/or corporations who would pay Arkain2K for his consistently-awesome, consistently-updated, and consistently well-balanced threads, feel free to send them his way!

How much free time does he have to post on Sherdog?

About 15 minutes to half an hour each day, more if there's something interesting to talk about, either regarding International Politics (Venezuela, Philippines, Brazil), California-related events, MMA news - particularly the Women's Divisions, or serious topics that appeals to me personally (U.S Supreme Court), and I pay very, VERY little attention to the usual race-baiting/trolling/government conspiracy threads that we're knees-deep in on Sherdog.

My longest stretch of Sherdog binge was probably during the Brexit votes. I think I (and a handful of other Sherdoggers from Europe) actually stayed up to about 3AM as the votes are coming in, just because it's so damn exciting. The only other time was when Trump came to our town and the cholos came out en masse to riot.

While some people prefer to spend hours on ends arguing about pointless shit, I personally like to create interesting topics of discussions for those who enjoys debating with other intelligent posters. Topics where your typical Shertards gets stomped down mercilessly when they're making an ass out of themselves.

@Madmick: Do you think these observations on my thread-starting prowess deserve their own thread? Perhaps under the title "Arkain2K deserves to get paid for his awesome threads"?

Spoiler

 

[Anung Un Rama]

That's not the point. Some paid trolls are paid to be awesome or informative to attract more viewers.

At the end of the day, he handpick specific sources and controls the narrative. This is a strategy used by paid trolls working for governments or corporations. The fact that he's doing it so consistently is suspicious. How much free time does he have to post on Sherdog?

I don't see it, but if the man can gat some cash out of it.