Announcement

Collapse

Computer Lab Guidelines

Here in the computer lab, we talk about cool tech, the newest coolest gadgets, and tackle your toughest tech questions.

If you need to refresh yourself on the decorum, now would be a good time. Forum Rules: here
See more
See less

United Nations taking over the internet???? Really???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • United Nations taking over the internet???? Really???

    I know that there are alarm bells ringing about the possibility that the United Nations will soon control the internet. There are even some people claiming that this is some sort of Harbinger. I would like to distinguish myth from fact. What has everyone heard about this? I would like to know.
    If anyone wants to read my Kindle Book, feel free to click this hyperlink: http://www.amazon.com/Key-Logic-Ted-...gic+ted+hickox

  • #2
    Originally posted by Speedlearner1 View Post
    I know that there are alarm bells ringing about the possibility that the United Nations will soon control the internet. There are even some people claiming that this is some sort of Harbinger. I would like to distinguish myth from fact. What has everyone heard about this? I would like to know.
    Sounds to me like you are starting a rumor or passing it on. It is ridiculous.

    Comment


    • #3
      Here's some info from WSJ from a couple weeks ago....

      Source: WSJ

      When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

      On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”

      It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.

      Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.

      Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

      Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, called it “simply stunning” that the “politically blinded Obama administration missed the obvious point that Icann loses its antitrust shield should the government relinquish control.”

      The administration might not have considered the antitrust issue, which would have been naive. Or perhaps in its arrogance the administration knew all along Icann would lose its antitrust immunity and look to the U.N. as an alternative. Congress could have voted to give Icann an antitrust exemption, but the internet giveaway plan is too flawed for legislative approval.

      © Copyright Original Source

      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #4
        yeah that is scare tactics. ICANN doesn't control the internet, and if someone tried to use it to control access, we could just as easily bypass it and create another database system of names and addresses. It is basically just a registration company that assists in lookup tables where you cross reference names and ip addresses. A big phone book.
        Last edited by Sparko; 09-09-2016, 01:26 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          besides the antitrust laws are just regarding US corporations. If ICANN becomes international, then the antitrust laws wouldn't really apply would they? The US has no control over international companies.
          Last edited by Sparko; 09-09-2016, 01:26 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks for the info. If you learn anything else, I would be very grateful for the extra information. I'm sure other people would be just as grateful.
            If anyone wants to read my Kindle Book, feel free to click this hyperlink: http://www.amazon.com/Key-Logic-Ted-...gic+ted+hickox

            Comment


            • #7
              Apparently four major US states aren't a optimistic about ICANN's control over the internet...

              Four Republican state attorneys general are suing to stop the Obama administration from transferring oversight of the internet to an international body, arguing the transition would violate the U.S. Constitution.

              The lawsuit — filed Wednesday in a Texas federal court — threatens to throw up a new roadblock to one of the White House’s top tech priorities, just days before the scheduled Oct. 1 transfer of the internet’s address system is set to take place.

              In their lawsuit, the attorneys general for Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas contend that the transition, lacking congressional approval, amounts to an illegal giveaway of U.S. government property. They also express fear that the proposed new steward of the system, a nonprofit known as ICANN, would be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”

              The four states further contend that ICANN could revoke the U.S. government’s exclusive use of .gov and .mil, the domains used by states, federal agencies and the U.S. military for their websites. And the four attorneys general argue that ICANN’s “current practices often foster a lack of transparency that, in turn, allows illegal activity to occur.”

              “Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement. “The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.”

              Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4LlGGomhh

              Comment

              Related Threads

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by Ronson, 03-20-2024, 07:20 PM
              2 responses
              28 views
              0 likes
              Last Post rogue06
              by rogue06
               
              Started by Christian3, 03-15-2024, 10:15 AM
              13 responses
              64 views
              0 likes
              Last Post QuantaFille  
              Working...
              X