US giving up remaining oversight of ICANN?

[Taro T]

I saw a Crovitz article a couple of days ago regarding the Commerce Dept's plan to not renew it's contract past 2015 with ICANN. Related article: http://www.lawfarebl...-ntia-and-iana/

 

Surprised there wasn't a thread about it over here. Any thoughts on what this means as far as actual functioning of the internet?

Edited March 21, 2014 by Taro T

[IDBillzFan]

While the WH seems to think it can operate with a pen and phone, I don't think this can happen without Congressional approval, Or maybe it can happen without Congress, but Congress can stop it.

 

Either way, my understanding is that in giving up control, it is now available to those countries who might seek to stymie voices of opposition.

 

Oh, wait. That's us, too. Nevermind.

[Taro T]

While the WH seems to think it cit n operate with a pen and phone, I don't think this can happen without Congressional approval, Or maybe it can happen without Congress, but Congress can stop it.

 

Either way, my understanding is that in giving up control, it is now available to those countries who might seek to stymie voices of opposition.

 

Oh, wait. That's us, too. Nevermind.

I am hoping that the Commerce Dept can't unilaterally drop this w/out Congressional say or that it isn't a very big deal. But to my layman's eyes, it appears to be a big deal.

 

Not sure why it isn't getting more coverage. Unless I'm missing something.

[IDBillzFan]

I am hoping that the Commerce Dept can't unilaterally drop this w/out Congressional say or that it isn't a very big deal. But to my layman's eyes, it appears to be a big deal.

 

Not sure why it isn't getting more coverage. Unless I'm missing something.

 

It is a big deal, but a plane was abducted by aliens through a black hole, so CNN doesn't have time for it right now.

[B-Man]

Congress Should Act to Protect the Internet

by Charles C W Cooke

 

Earlier in the week, I wrote about the Commerce Department’s baffling decision to relinquish its oversight of ICANN, the keeper of the Internet’s “guts.” This, I argued, was an “unforced error” and a “shame” — a classic case of government electing to fix a system that wasn’t broken. Most worrying, I suggested, was that the move played right into the hands of the likes of Russia and China, both of which are desperate to expand their influence.

 

In the Wall Street Journal, L. Gordon Crovitz takes my warning one step further. Not only has the U.S. opened up the Internet to interference from outsiders who do not share its commitment to liberty, Crovitz writes, but it may well have let in the United Nations — the worst of all possible options:

 

The ITU is now a lead candidate to replace the U.S. in overseeing Icann. The Commerce Department says it doesn’t want to transfer responsibility to the ITU or other governments, but has suggested no alternative. Icann’s CEO, Mr. Chehadé, told reporters after the Obama administration’s announcement that U.S. officials are “not saying that they’d exclude governments—governments are welcome, all governments are welcome.”

 

Ms. Dyson calls U.N. oversight a “fate worse than death” for the Internet

.

 

The alternative to control over the Internet by the U.S. is not the elimination of any government involvement. It is, rather, the involvement of many other governments, some authoritarian, at the expense of the U.S. Unless the White House plan is reversed, Washington will hand the future of the Web to the majority of countries in the world already on record hoping to close the open Internet.

 

Nevertheless, Crovitz thinks that it is possible that there will be a popular backlash:

The Obama administration’s move could become a political issue in the U.S. as people realize the risks to the Internet. And Congress may have the ability to force the White House to drop its plan

: The general counsel of the Commerce Department opined in 2000 that because there were no imminent plans to transfer the Icann contract, “we have not devoted the possibly substantial staff resources that would be necessary to develop a legal opinion as to whether legislation would be necessary to do so.”

 

 

Regardless of whether the Commerce Department needs legislative approval to transfer its authority, Congress can certainly prohibit it from doing so — and over a presidential veto if necessary. It should do so, reversing Commerce’s decision and maintaining American oversight.

 

The support for such a move seems to be there. In 2012, the House unanimously warned the ITU to keep its hands in its pockets. A similar bill, introduced into the Senate by Marco Rubio and Claire McCaskill, passed without a single “nay.”

 

More at the Link:

[GG]

I think a lot of it has to do with timing. Commerce always intended to privatize DNS management. The move shouldn't change the functioning of the Internet communication, but it would definitely affect assignment and control of domain names.

 

The problem is how to go go private and still keep the Internet as is. Let's say that a certain POTUS wanted to throw an olive branch to show that US was serious in its desire to be more likable to the rest of the world, and heard the siren call of the UN and other nations to "democratize" the domain assignments, and involve the UN/ITU in the process. I am convinced that Obama would have ok'd handing the oversight to the UN. But now given what happened in Ukraine and with Turkey threatening to destroy Twitter, he'd be an idiot to let the UN anywhere near anything to do with DNS or anything related Internet.

[DC Tom]

I think a lot of it has to do with timing. Commerce always intended to privatize DNS management. The move shouldn't change the functioning of the Internet communication, but it would definitely affect assignment and control of domain names.

 

The problem is how to go go private and still keep the Internet as is. Let's say that a certain POTUS wanted to throw an olive branch to show that US was serious in its desire to be more likable to the rest of the world, and heard the siren call of the UN and other nations to "democratize" the domain assignments, and involve the UN/ITU in the process. I am convinced that Obama would have ok'd handing the oversight to the UN. But now given what happened in Ukraine and with Turkey threatening to destroy Twitter, he'd be an idiot to let the UN anywhere near anything to do with DNS or anything related Internet.

 

Good thing Obama has such a track record of sound leadership and management based on common sense, and not acting out of a desperate narcissistic need to be liked.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I think a lot of it has to do with timing. Commerce always intended to privatize DNS management. The move shouldn't change the functioning of the Internet communication, but it would definitely affect assignment and control of domain names.

 

The problem is how to go go private and still keep the Internet as is. Let's say that a certain POTUS wanted to throw an olive branch to show that US was serious in its desire to be more likable to the rest of the world, and heard the siren call of the UN and other nations to "democratize" the domain assignments, and involve the UN/ITU in the process. I am convinced that Obama would have ok'd handing the oversight to the UN. But now given what happened in Ukraine and with Turkey threatening to destroy Twitter, he'd be an idiot to let the UN anywhere near anything to do with DNS or anything related Internet.

 

Unfortunately, our President is a mouth-breathing simpleton who doesn't understand that we have enemies who'd like nothing more than to make the Internet something more easily controlled.

[Nanker]

I am hoping that the Commerce Dept can't unilaterally drop this w/out Congressional say or that it isn't a very big deal. But to my layman's eyes, it appears to be a big deal.

 

Not sure why it isn't getting more coverage. Unless I'm missing something.

http://youtu.be/u2yBRucRe7c

[Taro T]

http://youtu.be/u2yBRucRe7c

 

That's what I'm afraid of.