Obama Administration to Privatize Internet Governance on Oct. 1 - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The Obama administration said Tuesday it will formally shift authority for much of the internet’s governance to a nonprofit multi-stakeholder entity on Oct. 1, a move likely to spark a backlash from parts of Congress. The administration—as well as many in the high-tech community—regard the long-planned move as necessary to maintain international support for the internet and prevent a fracturing of its governance. They say transferring authority for the internet’s domain-name system to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers will have no practical effect on the internet’s functioning or its users.[/quote] Quote from WSJ, but adding an extra source. Wsj [url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-to-privatize-internet-governanceon-oct-1-1471381820?mod=e2fb[/url] Examiner [url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/america-to-hand-off-internet-in-under-two-months/article/2599521[/url]

Hurray we get to give ICANN more stuff to pull bullshit with! (Not that there's a better option)

oddly enough you'd think everybody in congress would be for this, after all its getting rid of burdensome gobment regulation (because nobody in congress seems to know or care to get the facts right on Net Neutrality anyways)

The reason most are in an up roar though is ICANN has a China office and people think this will lead to censorship with no oversight, which I suppose is possible. Wouldn't be a good move.

I like that it implies governmental entities would individually hold less power to arbitrarily seize domain names (such as in instances of supposed copyright infringement), but this also sounds like it will be harder for individual countries to pass laws their citizens may deem necessary. For example, if domain authority rests with a private multinational company, the US wouldn't have effective authority against that private entity seizing domain names that they simply don't want competing with services in their own pockets. This doesn't appear to have anything to do with Net Neutrality or ISP behaviors and regulations, in terms of direct restrictions.

I have my suspicion that his is a move to directly impose anti-net neutrality clauses. There's simply too much opposition from the citizens and too much pressure on congress not to pass bills that could break how we use the internet. So, why not hand it off to an organization that can do it behind closed doors. Maybe my tinfoil hat is too tight, but when something so specific like this happens after years of failed attempts to lock the free internet down, something smells fishy. Even though it doesn't seem to have any direct relation to ISP or net neutrality, i can only imagine that one day it might go there. On the other hand, congress people literally have no idea about technology, so thats a good thing.

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;50909370]I have my suspicion that his is a move to directly impose anti-net neutrality clauses. There's simply too much opposition from the citizens and too much pressure on congress not to pass bills that could break how we use the internet. So, why not hand it off to an organization that can do it behind closed doors. Maybe my tinfoil hat is too tight, but when something so specific like this happens after years of failed attempts to lock the free internet down, something smells fishy. Even though it doesn't seem to have any direct relation to ISP or net neutrality, i can only imagine that one day it might go there. On the other hand, congress people literally have no idea about technology, so thats a good thing.[/QUOTE] I think the opposite, to fucking protect the internet from anti-Net Neutrality congressmen.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50909394]I think the opposite, to fucking protect the internet from anti-Net Neutrality congressmen.[/QUOTE] I sincerely hope so.

This is about web addresses, not connection speeds and ISP regulation. [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] I'd still rather this be ran by multinational governmental bodies, though.

I am so conflicted about this. I am not a fan of ICANN being run by the US Government, but privatising it seems like a bad idea in the long run. It just means control may go to the highest bidder rather than the most worthy. China will have money bags for this sort of stuff - if China control the root DNS zone, oh dear. Should be run by the ITU or something.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;50912523]I am so conflicted about this. I am not a fan of ICANN being run by the US Government, but privatising it seems like a bad idea in the long run. It just means control may go to the highest bidder rather than the most worthy. China will have money bags for this sort of stuff - if China control the root DNS zone, oh dear. Should be run by the ITU or something.[/QUOTE] ICANN isn't run by the US gov. it's actually a non profit org based in California run by a board of directors, although they do rely on advice from many different representative committees (over 100 committees i think?). It's not being sold to ICANN or being put up for bid.

Well, i just cant wait until something like the twitter trust and safety council gets their hands on the whole Internet... all gore and everything. Just kidding, something like that will never happen. Right guys? guys?