RIP Internet.

[Bleedingyamato]

On September 29, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Lurick said:

And more people who don't understand the difference between IANA and ICANN and how only IANA is being handed over.

What's the difference?  

[mmaatt747]

2 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

But everyone who was protesting was arrested though.

Exactly right!  They were arrested for protesting at that memorial without a permit.  Everyone that wouldn't leave when told was arrested.  My whole point was that it had nothing to do with kissing or public affection as so many people were regurgitating blindly.

[Thaldor]

Went through this thread and notices that 'Muricans can't comprehend the difference between 'Murica controlled internet and UN controlled internet.

 

Let's start from one basic change it would bring that US gives the control of the internet to the UN. In UN there's five countries that have veto power, so if even one of them is against some ruling or resolution that UN is making, they can stop it. Countries that have veto power in UN are US, UK, France, Russia and China which makes UN probably the most globally neutral counsil. Ofcourse it's bad for 'Muricans even though US has veto right it only has one vote and it cannot run UN like it runs NATO. What this means is that even if 'Muricans get the idea to block the whole Russia out of the internet (totally made-up situation), they couldn't do it, because Russia would use their veto right and probably many countries would vote against it.

At this moment ICANN basicly is already global counsil, but it only operates as non-profit organization in US. Moving it to the UN as real globally addressed organization would make it invulnerable for single country bias it now has as danger. It's danger because as US operating non-profit organization it's under US jurisdiction and if US wants, it can seize the whole ICANN (which probably never happens because it would be the same as US starting digital WW3, because I don't think many other ICANN member countries would take it lightly that US single handedly and forcefully takes control over the internet).

 

[sarcasm]

Also the internet is so global that any one country can go F themselfs and give the power to decide over the internet to everybody. If US wants to run their own internet go and have a field day with the ARPANET, 'Muricas very own internet, (oh sorry, I forgot that you decommisioned it in the 1990).

[/sarcasm]

 

But the real question here is the DNS root zone which is still governed by National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) which has given over the government of DNS root to ICANN with contract which is expiring 30th of September 2016. NTIA has stated that it is thinking giving up the whole govermenting of DNS root to some organization, but at this time there hasn't been anything else than just contracting it to ICANN and now talks about moving ICANN to under UN jurisdiction and then giving the govermenting of DNS root to it totally and finally.

[PocketNerd]

1 hour ago, mmaatt747 said:

Exactly right!  They were arrested for protesting at that memorial without a permit.  Everyone that wouldn't leave when told was arrested.  My whole point was that it had nothing to do with kissing or public affection as so many people were regurgitating blindly.

Didn't realize you needed a permit to exercise your right to free speech.

[CostcoSamples]

47 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

Went through this thread and notices that 'Muricans can't comprehend the difference between 'Murica controlled internet and UN controlled internet.

 

Let's start from one basic change it would bring that US gives the control of the internet to the UN. In UN there's five countries that have veto power, so if even one of them is against some ruling or resolution that UN is making, they can stop it. Countries that have veto power in UN are US, UK, France, Russia and China which makes UN probably the most globally neutral counsil. Ofcourse it's bad for 'Muricans even though US has veto right it only has one vote and it cannot run UN like it runs NATO. What this means is that even if 'Muricans get the idea to block the whole Russia out of the internet (totally made-up situation), they couldn't do it, because Russia would use their veto right and probably many countries would vote against it.

At this moment ICANN basicly is already global counsil, but it only operates as non-profit organization in US. Moving it to the UN as real globally addressed organization would make it invulnerable for single country bias it now has as danger. It's danger because as US operating non-profit organization it's under US jurisdiction and if US wants, it can seize the whole ICANN (which probably never happens because it would be the same as US starting digital WW3, because I don't think many other ICANN member countries would take it lightly that US single handedly and forcefully takes control over the internet).

 

[sarcasm]

Also the internet is so global that any one country can go F themselfs and give the power to decide over the internet to everybody. If US wants to run their own internet go and have a field day with the ARPANET, 'Muricas very own internet, (oh sorry, I forgot that you decommisioned it in the 1990).

[/sarcasm]

 

But the real question here is the DNS root zone which is still governed by National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) which has given over the government of DNS root to ICANN with contract which is expiring 30th of September 2016. NTIA has stated that it is thinking giving up the whole govermenting of DNS root to some organization, but at this time there hasn't been anything else than just contracting it to ICANN and now talks about moving ICANN to under UN jurisdiction and then giving the govermenting of DNS root to it totally and finally.

All this is based on one erroneous assumption: That "nations" are voting at the UN.  A more precise statement would be that a bureaucrat from each nation is voting.  Whether that bureaucrat represents the wishes of their nation is not established.

[mmaatt747]

38 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Didn't realize you needed a permit to exercise your right to free speech.

Yeah it depends where you are as well.  The 1st amendment does not necessarily provide carte blanche to free speech such as organizing a flash mob protest at a memorial

[Thaldor]

2 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

All this is based on one erroneous assumption: That "nations" are voting at the UN.  A more precise statement would be that a bureaucrat from each nation is voting.  Whether that bureaucrat represents the wishes of their nation is not established.

Still a lot better than only one country having it under their jurisdiction. IRCC ICANN would join the UN as special agency (like WHO, IAEA, UNESCO, UNICEF and so on) so, it would be under the UN jurisdiction but still led by professionals who are selected by nominating comitee as it is now. Also under UN jurisdiction it will be under global transparency treaties, like that would change anything since ICANN is already observed by quite many powerful parties like Interpol, counsil of Europe, CERN, ESA, WTO, Red Cross and almost every single organization that has a big part in international politics, peacekeeping, science and finances.

 

So really only thing to change is that ICANN would be immune to the ideas of any single idiot running a country.

[CostcoSamples]

1 hour ago, Thaldor said:

Still a lot better than only one country having it under their jurisdiction. IRCC ICANN would join the UN as special agency (like WHO, IAEA, UNESCO, UNICEF and so on) so, it would be under the UN jurisdiction but still led by professionals who are selected by nominating comitee as it is now. Also under UN jurisdiction it will be under global transparency treaties, like that would change anything since ICANN is already observed by quite many powerful parties like Interpol, counsil of Europe, CERN, ESA, WTO, Red Cross and almost every single organization that has a big part in international politics, peacekeeping, science and finances.

 

So really only thing to change is that ICANN would be immune to the ideas of any single idiot running a country.

Well it's official now.  I don't believe this will turn out to be a positive move.  I sincerely hope I am wrong.