Internet transition triggers GOP backlash - 'Threatens Free Speech'

Politico
By JESSICA MEYERS and ERIN MERSHON
3/15/14

Quote:

---

The GOP may have just found a midterm election rallying cry.

---

Internet transition triggers GOP backlash

The Obama administration’s decision to relinquish oversight over the group that manages the Internet’s architecture has raised an early red flag with Republicans, who blast the move as a threat to free speech.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has managed the Web’s domain-name system under contract with the U.S. government for more than a decade — but the Los Angeles-based nonprofit has worked to transform itself into a global organization free of U.S. ties. European Union officials backed the globalization effort, which intensified with Edward Snowden’s leaks about the NSA’s sprawling surveillance programs.


The United States has always played a leading role in overseeing the management of .com and other domain names, but the administration announced Friday night that it will give up its oversight when the current contract expires in fall 2015. The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, last month proposed establishing “a clear timeline” for globalizing ICANN and the duties it performs under the U.S. contract.

Exactly who would regulate the Web’s back-end is unclear, but the decision already has sparked backlash among some in the GOP, who warn it could allow the United Nations or authoritarian countries to step in and seize control of the Web.

“While I certainly agree our nation must stridently review our procedures regarding surveillance in light of the NSA controversy, to put ourselves in a situation where censorship-laden governments like China or Russia could take a firm hold on the Internet itself is truly a scary thought,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said. “I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee and with the Commerce Department on this, because — to be blunt — the ‘global internet community’ this would empower has no First Amendment.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, minutes after the Friday announcement, tweeted: “Every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the Internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous.”

And that’s just a start.

“This is red meat for the base,” said former Rep. Mary Bono (R-Calif.), who sponsored a resolution in 2012 aimed at keeping the Internet free of governmental control. “We’re at a critical time where [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is proving he is capable of outmaneuvering the administration. … As they digest it, I think people are going to be very upset.”

U.S. lawmakers have long warned about the dangers of ceding ICANN’s authority to the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency. They see the U.N. as a vehicle for countries with tight constraints to allow even greater online censorship. Congress unanimously passed Bono’s resolution ahead of a 2012 ITU meeting to reinforce America’s commitment to an open Internet.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration — the Commerce Department agency that made the announcement — emphasized ICANN would need to meet several principles ahead of the transition, including ensuring the openness of the Internet.

“We will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental solution,” the agency’s administrator, Larry Strickling, told reporters.

An NTIA official said Friday the agency had no intention of handing the contract over to another government or group, but wanted to find a method of oversight that incorporated broader voices. Only a proposal with broad community support would be approved, he said.

(Also on POLITICO: Rockefeller slams '.sucks' for sites)

Several Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), applauded the planned transition. He called it “the next phase” toward “an independent entity that reflects the broad diversity of the global Internet community.”

Some Republicans reacted with more caution. A spokesman for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said lawmakers “must consider this carefully and ensure this transition reflects the unanimous statement Congress made last year,” adding, “Under no circumstances should this contract transition to a government or government entity.”

But at least one right-leaning group called on lawmakers to intervene.

“Congress needs to prevent the Obama administration from giving away U.S. control over the Internet to any international body,” Americans for Limited Government said in a statement. “Perhaps this latest egregious action by the Obama administration in their quest to deconstruct the United States will finally wake Congress up to their power of the purse responsibility as a co-equal partner in government.”

And GOP FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly shared concern “that NTIA’s announcement could set the stage for foreign governments and quasi-governmental entities to try to gain control of the Internet.”

“If this goes forward, the real work will be to ensure that ICANN satisfies the conditions outlined and that these principles cannot and will not be undermined in the future,” he said. “The only acceptable Internet governance structure, other than the current one, is a multi-stakeholder model completely free from foreign government intrusion.”

The GOP may have just found a midterm election rallying cry, Bono predicted.

“It could be the beginning of censorship,” she said. “Anyone frustrated with the UN Security Council could take a look at this and recognize potential problems.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/internet-transition-triggers-gop-backlash-104698.html

http://www.alipac.us/f9/drudge-repor...2/#post1400215

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...64570204_s.jpg Conservative Lady

Carter Panama Canal ll – Obama Gives Away America’s Internet

[Watch] Carter Panama Canal ll – Obama Gives Away America’s Internet

Posted on 16 March, 2014 by Rick Wells

http://gopthedailydose.com/wp-conten...-same-plan.png


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...;v=Clp_PmaBccg

Blaming a lack of accountability and control for the giveaway of America’s internet to the United Nations is just another of the many lies and diversions coming from the Obama administration.
If this were in fact a result of misconduct, it would be the first instance where the regime in power even acknowledged its misdeeds, let alone taking corrective action.
This is more of a case of shifting one of the world’s most important assets from America to the globalists at the United Nations, thereby giving them their first avenue into legal control over other sovereign nations, including America.
This will set a precedent and acclimate Americans into paying their UN tax. Just as the income tax began as a small insignificant one percent in the beginning, these things always grow, given time.
What will be the likelihood that an opinion attacking the UN will be permitted to have it’s place in cyberspace in the future? Will the discussion of conflicts or religious persecution, even terrorism be subject to a review by an anonymous UN minder? What type of system will be employed to remove “offensive material” and who will define what is offensive?
Just as the governments of tyrannical nations sit on the United Nations human rights commission, we’ll find a similar case in dealing with internet censorship and access in the years to come.
Maybe someone in the private sector will decide it’s time to build a private sector internet.
If so, maybe they’ll nip the thing in the bud and exclude governments, and the UN, now and in the future.

Rick Wells is a conservative Constitutionalist author who contributes to conservative media outlets. “Like” him on Facebook and “Follow” him on Twitter.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/03/1...icas-internet/

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...ring.png&cfs=1


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...76497368_a.jpg Conservative Daily

Uh, what did the Obama administration just do...

Did The Administration Just Weaken Internet Security And Set The Stage For A Global Web Tax?

By Mike Miller
20 hours ago

http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/u...ng-705x330.png

The Obama administration on Friday announced plans to relinquish U.S. control over management of the Internet to the “global Internet community.” While the announcement of the plan was sure to please international critics (and some Democrats), it created concern among business leaders and others who depend on a smoothly functioning web.
Oh, and it may lead to a global web tax, as well.
Former Bush administration State Department senior advisor Christian Whiton told The Daily Caller:

“U.S. management of the Internet has been exemplary and there is no reason to give this away — especially in return for nothing. This is the Obama equivalent of Carter’s decision to give away the Panama Canal — only with possibly much worse consequences.”

The Department of Commerce announced the decision to give up control of the Internet’s core infrastructure, in part, as a result of international pressure following revelations by Edward Snowden about the NSA’s global surveillance program.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has overseen domain names, assigned Internet protocol addresses, and executed other crucial Internet functions since 2000 under the supervision of the Commerce Department. That contract will be cancelled once final plans to relinquish U.S. control have been completed.
In additions to concerns about a weakening of Internet security, Whiton also warned of the potential of a global web tax:

“If the U.N. gains control what amounts to the directory and traffic signals of the Internet, it can impose whatever taxes it likes. It likely would start with a tax on registering domains and expand from there.”

So, should Americans be concerned? Of course they should. While the UN may not be outwardly anti-American, more often than not, it sides with those who oppose the best interests of the U.S.
One need look no farther than the UN proposal to create a “global warming tax,” by which it would redistribute billions of dollars from “developed” “polluting” countries to (supposedly “non-polluting”) “developing” countries (it excludes China and Russia from the “developed” list, by the way).
Yet the administration once again demonstrates its “world view” of the way things ought to be. This time, a potential threat to the Internet as we know it.

John Kerry Demonstrates How To Strike Fear In The Hearts Of Invading Dictators

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/1215...lobal-web-tax/

3/15/2014 @ 7:56AM 13,990 views

US Government Cedes Control Of The Internet

Comment Now

The US government is to give up control of the administration of the internet, handing over responsibility for the IP numbering network and domain name system (DNS) to the global community.
Since 1998, under a contract with the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), DNS has been handled by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit corporation created for the purpose.

But when its current contract expires in September 2015, it won’t be renewed. In the meantime, an alternative will be worked out.
“The timing is right to start the transition process,” says assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information Lawrence E Strickling. “We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.”
ICANN will work with organizations including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet Society (ISOC), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), top level domain name operators, VeriSign and others to develop new proposals. The first meeting on the subject will take place in Singapore later this month.
The intention is to maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the internet – along with its openness. The Commerce Department says it won’t accept a proposal that simply allows another government or group of governments to take over the role of the NTIA.
The responsibilities to be farmed out will include the administration of changes to the DNS’s authoritative root zone file – the database containing the lists of names and addresses of all top-level domains – as well as managing the unique identifiers registries for domain names, IP addresses, and protocol parameters.
The move has been a long time coming. Right back in 1998, the Commerce Department declared that it was “committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.”
However, there have been increased calls for changes in the light of Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying. Critics have complained that the present system gives the US too much influence, and have called for greater input from the UN and International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/emmaw...ac158e66_b.jpg

Commerce Department (Photo credit: NCinDC)

“Even though ICANN will continue to perform these vital technical functions, the US has long envisioned the day when stewardship over them would be transitioned to the global community,” says Dr Stephen D Crocker, ICANN’s board chair.
“In other words, we have all long known the destination. Now it is up to our global stakeholder community to determine the best route to get us there.”
The move has been broadly welcomed by rights groups. “This is a very constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance ecosystem,” says Anriette Esterhuysen, executive director of the Association for Progressive PGR +1.28% Communications (APC). “This is particularly important for stakeholders from developing countries.”
But some people are less happy.

“Every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous,” tweetedformer speaker of the house Newt Gingrich.
“What is the global internet community that Obama wants to turn the internet over to? This risks foreign dictatorships defining the internet.”

But this is just scare-mongering, says the Internet Governance Project (IGP), an alliance of academics that has been campaigning for changes to internet governance since 2005, in a statement.
“Far from ‘giving up’ something or ‘losing control’, the US is sure to find that its policy has gained strength. We have just made it a lot harder for opponents of a free and open internet to pretend that what they are really against is an internet dominated by one hegemonic state,” it says.
“We have also made it harder for anyone to complain that multistakeholder governance is just a fig leaf for US pre-eminence.”
The IGP does, though, have its own concerns, centered around the importance of separating root zone management functions from the policy making functions – which have highly political implications. It’s worried that ICANN is managing the transition process itself.
“Everyone needs to understand that ICANN as an organization has a very strong interest in gaining control of both the technical-operational and the policy making functions. Controlling both makes ICANN a far more powerful, and far less accountable, entity,” it warns.
“Like all organizations, ICANN wants to achieve autonomy and strengthen itself. Countervailing forces in the internet community will be needed to keep it in check.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawool...oil-china-nsa/

'It Works, Why Are We Fixing It?': U.S. Cedes Control of Internet Domains

http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnew...2114_Judge.jpg


BY FOX NEWS INSIDER //MAR 21 2014 // 9:20AM
AS SEEN ON FOX AND FRIENDS

Video at the Page Link:

Judge Andrew Napolitano sat down with Elisabeth Hasselbeck this morning to weigh in on the Obama administration's move to cede U.S. control of the management of Internet domains.

Here's some background on the move from the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. government plans to give up control over the body that manages Internet names and addresses, a move that could bring more international cooperation over management of the Web, but will make some U.S. businesses nervous.

The Commerce Department said Friday it plans to relinquish its oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, which manages a number of technical functions that serve as signposts to help computers locate the correct servers and websites.

The action is viewed as a response to increasing international concern about U.S. control over the Internet's structure, particularly in light of the recent disclosures about surveillance by the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.

Other governments have complained that the department's contract with Icann gives the U.S. unique influence over the Web, which it could use for a wide variety of purposes. In response to those concerns, the Obama administration is convening a process to create a new oversight structure for Icann when the current contract runs out in September 2015.

Napolitano described the decision as "counterintuitive," explaining that usually the government seeks to expand its power, not give some of it up. The judge normally would be onboard with less government control over something, but in this case, he is concerned that this may lead to less freedom around the world because China and Russia will look to step in.

Napolitano pointed out that so far, the United States' private-public partnership that oversees domain names and Internet addresses has "worked very well."

"I would like to think this will be privately managed and if it becomes authoritarian somebody else will compete with it. And if you don't like the way it's being managed, you'll go to another server and another system. I'm not sure that that can happen without the United States in there as a buffer to China and Russia," he said, noting that this significant decision comes with the world's attention focused on Ukraine and the missing Malaysia Airlines plane.

Watch the interview above, and check back daily on Fox News Insider for all ofJudge Nap's analysis!

POSTED IN: // Internet // U.S. contol of Internet // Privacy // Russia // China // Google

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/03/21...ntrol-internet

Stop UN Takeover Of The Internet!
By Dick Morris on March 19, 2014


Click Here to sign the petition to stop UN takeover of the Internet!
http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/...over-internet/

There is a real danger that the United Nations could take over the Internet.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it was not going to renew its contract with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) which now controls the assignment of domain names.

Nobody knows how the ICANN functions will be performed in the future.

Waiting in the wings is the U.N. which tried to take over the Internet in 2012 at a meeting in Dubai where Russia and China tried to delegate control to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) an organization founded in 1895 that regulates long distance telephone lines and satellite orbits. The U.S. and Europe objected to the treaty which was negotiated in Dubai since it gave governments the power to assign domain names, get the actual names of the people involved in each site, censor web content, and charge fees for access to international sites.

A treaty was signed by 83 largely authoritarian states but the U.S. and Europe wouldn’t sign.

The ITU is run by Hamadoun Touré, a native of Mali who was educated in Lenningrad and Moscow in the 1980s and by Houlin Zhao, from China. The danger that communist-like control could be exerted over the Internet is very, very great.

Please sign this petition to keep the Internet free and to block UN efforts at controlling it. We must act now to stop the UN takeover.

Click Here to sign the petition to stop UN takeover of the Internet!

We will forward your signature to your Senators and Congressman. Please be sure to include your name, hard mailing address, and your email so we can do so.

http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/...over-internet/

Poll: Only 18% Support US Giving Up Control of the Internet

Poll: Almost 2/3 Oppose US Giving Up Control of the Internet

by ELIZABETH SHELD 21 Mar 2014, 5:55 AM PDT 85 POST A COMMENT

Rasmussen's latest polling effort shows that almost 2/3 (61%) of voters oppose the United States abdicating control of the internet. Last week, the government quietly announced that it would relinquish control over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) when its contract expires in the fall of 2015. Control will move to a yet-to-be established international body. Only 18% approve of the transfer.

More than half expect the move to make things worse. "Fifty-two percent (52%) think international control will make the Internet worse, but that’s less suspiciousthan voters were two years ago when we first asked this question."
An impressive 69% prefer the "free-market" development of the internet over more government involvement. A paltry 15% would like to see more government involvement.
Notably, the younger cohort aged 18-39 is more likely (24%) than middle-aged 40-64 (16%) to favor ceding control, although a clear majority all age groups oppose the effort. We find a similar age breakdown when voters were asked if it was likely that Russia or China or Iran would attempt to censor the internet. Only 20% of those between the ages of 18-39 believed that internet censorship was very likelywhile 36% of middle-agers thought so.
Nevertheless, that same younger age group favors the "free-market" development over more government involvement, with 76% of 18-39 year olds saying so.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2...f-the-Internet

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f19/republicans...al-gop-300729/

TECH/GADGETS
Internet lords keep .wine bottled for now

APRIL 8, 2014

SAN FRANCISCO, April 8 — Internet overseers are keeping .WINE and .VIN online addresses bottled in the hope a few months of aging will make them more palatable.

The head of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was under directive by its board on Monday to put a temporary hold on the process of contracting .WINE and .VIN domain names.

The 60-day hold on the process was implemented to “provide additional time for the relevant impacted parties to negotiate, which they are encouraged to do,” the ICANN board said in a resolution approved late Friday at a meeting in Singapore.

Wine industry groups in Europe, California and elsewhere keen on defending appellations with valuable reputations such as Bordeaux or Napa.

Wine makers also fear having to pay to register their names at websites in the new online terrain solely to stop online addresses from being used by imposters or in ways that could spoil reputations.

ICANN has measures in place to safeguard trademarks and other third-party interests, Universite Pantheon-Assas law professor Jerome Passa noted in a legal analysis solicited by the board.

In regard to Donuts Inc. seeking to operate online terroir dubbed .VIN and .WINE, Passa concluded in a written analysis that “there is no rule of the law of geographical indications, nor any general principle which obliges ICANN to reject the applications.”

An ICANN committee recommended that the board consider the larger implications of “legally complex and politically sensitive issues” at issue and whether there is a forum better suited to address concerns raised by .WINE and .VIN applications.

New online neighbourhoods began opening in January when Donuts began offering Web addresses ending in “.guru,” “.bike” — and even “.singles.”

Donuts, based in the northwestern state of Washington, manages domains, letting website registry firms such as GoDaddy sell addresses to the public.
Donuts has rolled out domain suffixes including camera, equipment, estate, gallery, graphics, lighting, and photography.

Opening the Internet to domain names that go far beyond .com, .net, .gov, and .edu has been heralded by Web overlords at ICANN as the biggest change to the Web since it was created.

More than 100 new gTLDs have cleared hurdles to reach registries such as Donuts.

Online neighbourhoods with addresses ending in the Chinese word for “game;” the Arabic words for “web” or “network,” or the Cyrillic word for “online” were cleared last year and more were to follow suit.

California-based ICANN says the huge expansion of the Internet — with some two billion users around the world, half of them in Asia — means new names are essential.

The arrival of new online neighbourhoods has been heralded as a “revolution” greatly expanding online terrain from the long-used 22 gTLDs, of which .com and .net comprise the lion’s share. — AFP-Relaxnews

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/te....84gAt27x.dpuf

Was It an April Fool Joke?


by Phyllis Schlafly
April 9, 2014

U.S. control of the Internet’s basic functions has kept the Web free for Americans and for the entire world. And it’s up to us to keep it that way.
As Ronald Reagan said during the great Panama Canal controversy in the mid-1970s, “We bought it. We built it. We paid for it. We intend to keep it.”

Within two years after the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty to give away our Canal, angry voters defeated two dozen Senators who voted for that treaty and induced eight more to retire. Reagan’s triumphant 1980 victory over both the Democrats and the Republican Establishment included the support of a new Republican Senate.

Where is the Republican leader who is smart enough to follow Reagan’s example and thereby pave a route to the White House? Where is a leader who will protect and defend America’s control of the Web, which is such a prime example of America’s technological exceptionalism?
President Obama tried to hide the news of his abandonment of our control of the Internet by having an Assistant Secretary in the Department of Commerce issue a low-key press release in those late Friday afternoon hours where embarrassing news is often buried. Was this an April Fool joke?

The U.S. created the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and has kept control over the technical procedures that allow computers around the world to connect to Web addresses. ICANN has managed the Internet’s Domain Name System since 1998, ensuring that the Internet runs efficiently without political pressure from any country.

Now the Obama Commerce Department wants to give ICANN away and even invite Communist China and Russia to help us police the Internet. That’s like telling the fox to guard the chicken coop because those countries don’t believe in free speech and don’t even allow their own people to have free access to the Internet.

That could be the most dangerous use yet of Obama’s now-famous pen. It’s also a great opportunity for some Republican to stand up for America like Reagan did, and reap the political reward.

There has to be political capital lurking in a pro-America policy position that is already espoused by the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Heritage Foundation, and Bill Clinton. Clinton warns that other countries “have been trying to take this authority from the U.S. for the sole purpose of cracking down on internet freedom and limiting it and having governments protect their backsides instead of empowering their people.”

Pundits can debate whether Obama had the constitutional right to give away our Internet power with the stroke of his pen, but there’s no question about the constitutional authority of Congress to veto what he did because the Constitution plainly gives the Commerce power to Congress.

Unfortunately, giving away the Internet is another key part of Barack Obama’s plan to diminish America’s power and prestige in the world. He wants to spread around world power to our enemies as well as our friends, just as he seeks to spread the wealth around in our country.

Obama’s defenders argue that his action is just part of a plan to support the “multi-stakeholder” model of Internet governance. That’s a buzzword to conceal the argument to hide the transfer of real control of the Web to many countries, companies, UN and globalist groups, none of which respect our First Amendment right.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, the top Democrat on the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee, said “while the internet was a product of American genius, no government or intergovernmental organization should control its future.” What nonsense! Of course America should control the valuable property that we built!

Some Democrats are whining that “stakeholders deserve” a voice and a role in the governance of the Internet. No, they don’t. We built it; it’s ours. And all stakeholders and countries are better off if the U.S. controls the Web rather than foreign or United Nations globalists who did nothing to build the Internet into such a valuable asset.

Among the many deceitful arguments used by the globalists is that taking the Internet away from the U.S. will advance us toward a goal of “no government control of the Internet.” If the United States doesn’t keep control of what we invented, the Internet will end up under Chinese or UN control.

And one more problem: for years the UN has searched for devious ways to tax individuals. Turning the ICANN domain-name system over to a bunch of global bureaucrats who did nothing to develop the Internet would give them an assortment of new ways to tax us.

Read previous Phyllis Schlafly columns

COLUMN ARCHIVES
2014	2013
2012	2011	2010	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004
2003	2002	2001	2000	1999	1998	1997	1996	1995

http://www.eagleforum.org/wp-content...2/05/ps-r3.gif

© 2014 - Eagle Forum

http://stats.wordpress.com/g.gif?hos...662&tz=-5&ref=
http://www.eagleforum.org/publicatio...fool-joke.html