Trump: Internet control belongs to US. Period

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Atmos said:

I can agree our congress and government at large is broken, but hell, It could be way... way worse.

And that same hypothetical can be applied to literally every other country. We don't know whats in the future, all we can do is look at the past and present and try to make an educated observation. 

Hell the next hitler could be canadian for all we know, but that doesn't have any value so far as the statement itself is concerned.

I agree that no government can have control over the internet, it needs to be unbound from governments and maintained by the citizenry, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is that we have two options right now, just these two. Either A; hand over control completely to ICANN, who then is absorbed by the UN to avoid antitrust regulations giving countries like russia and china a significant power over the internet. or B; the US remains in control of the internet until a more suitable solution is found.

And of those two options, the latter is obviously the safer route for everyone.

 

Disagree, since in the latter's case, the US retains control, which we know is dangerous. I mean, c'mon, you cannot simply "dismiss" anti US concerns. Your government is literally spying on it's own citizens, and is already breaking the constitution by doing so. And we're supposed to trust that?

 

Even if the UNSC somehow got direct control over IANA/iCANN, that would mean UK, France, and USA can out vote China and Russia.

 

And you keep talking about Veto powers - well guess what, USA has them too. If Russia or China try to institute some policy or command that the US doesn't like - I don't know, like trying to censor the entire world - yeah, the US is gonna veto that faster than I can take a shit.

 

AT WORST, it'll simply mean new measures might not get passed. But it certainly won't mean that Russia and China - even combined with their 2 votes - could have even a remote possibility of forcing something through that UK, France, and USA don't like.

 

I also furthermore question that the UN Security Council would even have any authority over this, even if the UN did get control over IANA/iCANN:

http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/functions.shtml

You'll notice that all the measures and powers they hold are in regards to political/international sanctions, conflict, armaments, etc. I don't see anything that could even remotely be tied to IANA/iCANN.

 

Now, even if UNSC member states happen to be the most powerful members of the UN, that does not automatically grant them authority over this body.

 

Your quoted article says that iCANN must become part of a state or risk anti-trust litigation? But how then, could iCANN operate, as it has, since 1998, as an international non-profit, with the governing body being that of 110-something nations?

 

If all they need to do to avoid that is to issue a contract from the US Department of Commerce, and to prevent UN control, then they can keep doing that. I don't see why not. Since ultimately, the issue here is transferring control of IANA to iCANN - and if iCANN already has a contract with the DoC, I really see no issue with that.

[Tomsen]

12 minutes ago, Atmos said:

The issue here is that we have two options right now, just these two. Either A; hand over control completely to ICANN, who then is absorbed by the UN to avoid antitrust regulations giving countries like russia and china a significant power over the internet. or B; the US remains in control of the internet until a more suitable solution is found.

And of those two options, the latter is obviously the safer route for everyone.

Could you please stop spreading such false information that almost goes as propaganda?

It does not give government like Russia or China significant power over the internet. (Do describe "power" they have instead, and don't mention WWW censorship, as I already covered that in my last reply). And the internet would most likely resume without a hitch.

 

@dalekphalm also covered it very well from another angle.

[Atmos]

46 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Disagree, since in the latter's case, the US retains control, which we know is dangerous. I mean, c'mon, you cannot simply "dismiss" anti US concerns. Your government is literally spying on it's own citizens, and is already breaking the constitution by doing so. And we're supposed to trust that?

 

Even if the UNSC somehow got direct control over IANA/iCANN, that would mean UK, France, and USA can out vote China and Russia.

 

And you keep talking about Veto powers - well guess what, USA has them too. If Russia or China try to institute some policy or command that the US doesn't like - I don't know, like trying to censor the entire world - yeah, the US is gonna veto that faster than I can take a shit.

 

AT WORST, it'll simply mean new measures might not get passed. But it certainly won't mean that Russia and China - even combined with their 2 votes - could have even a remote possibility of forcing something through that UK, France, and USA don't like.

 

I also furthermore question that the UN Security Council would even have any authority over this, even if the UN did get control over IANA/iCANN:

http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/functions.shtml

You'll notice that all the measures and powers they hold are in regards to political/international sanctions, conflict, armaments, etc. I don't see anything that could even remotely be tied to IANA/iCANN.

 

Now, even if UNSC member states happen to be the most powerful members of the UN, that does not automatically grant them authority over this body.

 

Your quoted article says that iCANN must become part of a state or risk anti-trust litigation? But how then, could iCANN operate, as it has, since 1998, as an international non-profit, with the governing body being that of 110-something nations?

 

If all they need to do to avoid that is to issue a contract from the US Department of Commerce, and to prevent UN control, then they can keep doing that. I don't see why not. Since ultimately, the issue here is transferring control of IANA to iCANN - and if iCANN already has a contract with the DoC, I really see no issue with that.

In a game of give and take that is how it works. However, the unsc is not a game of give and take, its purely a game of take. Just one of them has to be against an action and it can be vetoed, thats all it takes. 

Your fooling yourself if you think france and the uk arent spying on their own citizens though. they just havnt been outted yet. Neither also need as expansive a network as the us though, because you know, we have a higher population than both countries combined. 

 

even if icann falls i to the hands of the un, it will still be just as heavily controlled by the us as it is now, but with the added disadvantage of having russia and china stick their oppressive regime's fingers in it. 

 

if its between the us staying in control until a more suitable solution is found, or russia and china being able to muddle in the internets infrastructure, then anyone with half a mind shod be against this. 

 

Ive said it a dozen times now, i do not want the us to remain in control either. We NEED an independant group to maintain this service. But ICANN which will soon be in the pocket of the two most powerful, oppressive regimes on the planet, is absolutely NOT the group we need. not to mention all the blatantly anti consumer and anti company actions icann has taken part in lately. 

[MrDynamicMan]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Disagree, since in the latter's case, the US retains control, which we know is dangerous. I mean, c'mon, you cannot simply "dismiss" anti US concerns. Your government is literally spying on it's own citizens, and is already breaking the constitution by doing so. And we're supposed to trust that?

 

Even if the UNSC somehow got direct control over IANA/iCANN, that would mean UK, France, and USA can out vote China and Russia.

 

And you keep talking about Veto powers - well guess what, USA has them too. If Russia or China try to institute some policy or command that the US doesn't like - I don't know, like trying to censor the entire world - yeah, the US is gonna veto that faster than I can take a shit.

 

AT WORST, it'll simply mean new measures might not get passed. But it certainly won't mean that Russia and China - even combined with their 2 votes - could have even a remote possibility of forcing something through that UK, France, and USA don't like.

 

I also furthermore question that the UN Security Council would even have any authority over this, even if the UN did get control over IANA/iCANN:

http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/functions.shtml

You'll notice that all the measures and powers they hold are in regards to political/international sanctions, conflict, armaments, etc. I don't see anything that could even remotely be tied to IANA/iCANN.

 

Now, even if UNSC member states happen to be the most powerful members of the UN, that does not automatically grant them authority over this body.

 

Your quoted article says that iCANN must become part of a state or risk anti-trust litigation? But how then, could iCANN operate, as it has, since 1998, as an international non-profit, with the governing body being that of 110-something nations?

 

If all they need to do to avoid that is to issue a contract from the US Department of Commerce, and to prevent UN control, then they can keep doing that. I don't see why not. Since ultimately, the issue here is transferring control of IANA to iCANN - and if iCANN already has a contract with the DoC, I really see no issue with that.

Took the words right out of my mouth

 

TL:DR China and Russia don't hold UN majority, US & Friends can still veto. Un=! Russia and China. 

 

All making iCANN controlled by the UN will do is lessen the US's control and have the Internet (effectively) be untouchable by any country, because even one of the 5 can veto. If they all decide not to veto, then the internet being controlled will be the least of our problems. 

[StarSearch]

It seems that most of you are truly ignorant of what the American standard is, versus foreign.

America's principles are what made the country a superstar and other countries wanting to emulate it.  Freedom of speech, free markets, freedom of expression, freedom of worship, are rights granted to mankind by God, not government.  And America's form of government was created to secure those rights.  That's as simple as it needs to be stated for this issue.

Handing the power of the name server over to foreigners of a globalist mentality, means that the domains of detractors can easily be shut down.  So any and all news outlets that are against the globalist and democrat party mentality, will easily be turned off.  End of news.  End of freedom of expression, etc.

It's already happening in England, France, Germany, and some others where people are not longer able to say what they want or else they can be imprisoned or fined heavily.

America securing what America created (the internet) is not only right, but also proper.  Our Laws are in place to uphold freedom of expression.  In the global court, there is only tyranny and people whose sentiments are actually anti-America.

This is major bad.

To read up on more of the specifics and how bad it is, you can read here: 

https://californiajimmy.com/2016/09/27/surrenduring-control-internet-usa-designed-built-ran-successfully-since-1969-sep-2016/

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, StarSearch said:

It seems that most of you are truly ignorant of what the American standard is, versus foreign.

America's principles are what made the country a superstar and other countries wanting to emulate it.  Freedom of speech, free markets, freedom of expression, freedom of worship, are rights granted to mankind by God, not government.

......right......

*walks away*

[dalekphalm]

43 minutes ago, StarSearch said:

It seems that most of you are truly ignorant of what the American standard is, versus foreign.

America's principles are what made the country a superstar and other countries wanting to emulate it.  Freedom of speech, free markets, freedom of expression, freedom of worship, are rights granted to mankind by God, not government.  And America's form of government was created to secure those rights.  That's as simple as it needs to be stated for this issue.

Handing the power of the name server over to foreigners of a globalist mentality, means that the domains of detractors can easily be shut down.  So any and all news outlets that are against the globalist and democrat party mentality, will easily be turned off.  End of news.  End of freedom of expression, etc.

It's already happening in England, France, Germany, and some others where people are not longer able to say what they want or else they can be imprisoned or fined heavily.

America securing what America created (the internet) is not only right, but also proper.  Our Laws are in place to uphold freedom of expression.  In the global court, there is only tyranny and people whose sentiments are actually anti-America.

This is major bad.

To read up on more of the specifics and how bad it is, you can read here: 

https://californiajimmy.com/2016/09/27/surrenduring-control-internet-usa-designed-built-ran-successfully-since-1969-sep-2016/

This is some pretty fundamentalist stuff right here.

 

First and foremost, America is not the only country to claim by the "right of God", so therefore, that cannot mean anything.

 

You talk about America being the superstar? What about when the NSA violated your constitutional rights many-fold by mass spying on American Citizens? Where are your God given rights then?

 

America has a track record of breaking their own constitutional laws, when it comes to the internet. Why should I trust that Government?

 

This will not allow other nations to further censor the internet. Any nation that wants to do it, is doing it already. This won't change that. But it also won't allow them to censor anything beyond their own countries.

 

iCANN has already been de facto multi-national since 1998! So, it's pretty much gonna continue as status quo.

 

Quite frankly, I don't trust America, and any non-American shouldn't either. Hell, Americans shouldn't trust America, since the NSA hasn't stopped spying on people and breaking the constitution.

[Tomsen]

1 hour ago, StarSearch said:

It seems that most of you are truly ignorant of what the American standard is, versus foreign.

You do realize america doesnt always have the highest standard? It can actually be quite low in comparison to some 'foreign' nations.

 

The rest of you scare tactics has already being debunked (ICANN holds no power to impose any kind of world wide web censorship). That is a common misconception on what ICANN do.

 

What mskes you think the same is not happening to some extend in the US as in UK, Germany and France?