State AGs sue to stop Obama’s internet transition – Cite Constitutional Issues
“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.
“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.”
4 States Sue To Block Obama’s Internet Transition Set For Tomorrow Night
“The US government, much to the chagrin of Senator Ted Cruz, is set to officially relinquish the Department of Commerce’s oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as of tomorrow night at midnight.
ICANN is a California nonprofit that has supervised website domains since 1998, essentially under subcontract from the Commerce Department. Under the Obama transition plan oversight by the U.S. Commerce Department would end and be replaced by a multi-stakeholder community, which would include the technical community, businesses, civil society and governments.”
….Continue reading the edgy and informative article @ ZeroHedge
United States Atty’s Generals Sue to Stop Obama’s Internet Transition
“Since the 1990s, the U.S. has sought to unwind its influence from the Web’s architecture, arguing that experts from the international community — and not governments, including Washington — should oversee its day-to-day operations.
But the transition of the domain-name system to ICANN gained new momentum in the aftermath of Edward Snowden’s leaks about U.S. surveillance, with the Obama administration eager to avoid criticism from world leaders that Washington has too much power over the internet.
Tech companies have largely supported that plan, which the Commerce Department first announced in 2014. But conservatives on Capitol Hill, led by Sen. Ted Cruz, have argued that by loosening its grip on the internet, the administration will empower the likes of Russia and China and give them a bigger opening to control and censor the web.”
Obama Admin Wants To Surrender US Control Over Internet To Global Bureaucracy
– Daily Caller
“The Obama administration is planning to relinquish American control over a central portion of Internet governance.
The implications of this move range from control by an international bureaucracy to totalitarian regimes locking up entire portions of the Internet, according to experts.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is in the process of transitioning stewardship of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS) — the technical network that converts website address names into numbers — to a global entity. The DNS is essentially the “yellow pages” of web addresses. The transition is set to occur Oct. 1.
DNS control is causing deep disagreement in the technology world, as experts in the industry and academia have vastly different opinions on the issue. Some say security and free use of the Internet is better under the umbrella of an organization that resides in America, while others assert this power should be given to a global organization.”
Statement: Donald Trump Opposes Ceding Internet Control To Foreign Powers…
“Candidate Donald Trump has released the following statement on the controversial President Obama plan to hand over control of the internet to the United Nations:
“Donald J. Trump is committed to preserving Internet freedom for the American people and citizens all over the world. The U.S. should not turn control of the Internet over to the United Nations and the international community. President Obama intends to do so on his own authority – just 10 days from now, on October 1st, unless Congress acts quickly to stop him.
The Republicans in Congress are admirably leading a fight to save the Internet this week, and need all the help the American people can give them to be successful. Hillary Clinton’s Democrats are refusing to protect the American people by not protecting the Internet.
The U.S. created, developed and expanded the Internet across the globe. U.S. oversight has kept the Internet free and open without government censorship – a fundamental American value rooted in our Constitution’s Free Speech clause.
Internet freedom is now at risk with the President’s intent to cede control to international interests, including countries like China and Russia, which have a long track record of trying to impose online censorship. Congress needs to act, or Internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost.”
US NTIA’s plan to end ICANN contract puts Internet freedom at risk, critics say
“The freedom and openness of the Internet are at stake after the U.S. government announced plans to end its contractual oversight of ICANN, some critics said Thursday.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s announcement last month that it will end its contract with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to operate key domain-name functions could embolden other nations to attempt to seize control, some Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee said.
“All hyperbole aside, this hearing is about nothing less than the future of the Internet and, significantly, who has the right, the ability and the authority to determine it,” said Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican. “Should it be decided by a few people in Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Sao Paolo or even Silicon Valley or should it be determined by those who use and stand to benefit from it?”
Goodlatte suggested that other countries would try to control ICANN after the U.S. ends its contract. The U.S. can “rightly take credit for the freedom that exists the Internet today,” he said during a hearing. “When we let go of that final link, will that institution be safer from those efforts to regulate the Internet, or will it be more exposed because it no longer has the protection of the United States?”
The Internet engineers, companies and civil society groups involved in ICANN wouldn’t allow a government takeover of the organization, supporters of the NTIA’s plan said. “I cannot imagine the Internet engineers that I know agreeing to do any of the parade of horribles that people are concerned about,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat.
Separately, the technology subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted Thursday to approve the Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters (DOTCOM) Act, which would require a U.S. Government Accountability Office study about the effects of the transition before it happens. Members of that committee raised similar concerns in a hearing last week.
President Barack Obama’s administration opposes the bill because it raises questions about the U.S. government’s long-term support of a multistakeholder governance model at ICANN, said NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling.
Strickling assured Judiciary Committee members that the agency would not give up oversight of ICANN unless it is satisfied that the organization has a transition plan in place that prohibits a government takeover.
Several Republicans committee members questioned NTIA’s move to end its contractual relationship with ICANN as soon as late 2015, but Strickling defended the plan, saying one of the main reasons for the change is to remove the perception in some countries that the U.S. has too much control.”
Fifty years ago, in response to the surprise Soviet launch of Sputnik, the U.S. military set up the Advanced Research Projects Agency. It would become the cradle of connectivity, spawning the era of Google and YouTube, of Amazon and Facebook, of the Drudge Report and the Obama campaign. Each breakthrough—network protocols, hypertext, the World Wide Web, the browser—inspired another as narrow-tied engineers, long-haired hackers, and other visionaries built the foundations for a world-changing technology. Keenan Mayo and Peter Newcomb let the people who made it happen tell the story.
Bob Taylor: Working with AT&T would be like working with Cro-Magnon man. I asked them if they wanted to be early members so they could learn technology as we went along. They said no. I said, Well, why not? And they said, Because packet switching won’t work. They were adamant. As a result, AT&T missed out on the whole early networking experience.
Bob Kahn: They said, We want a network. This would be like a bid for a rocket to the moon—you know, handle a thousand pounds of payload, launch from a vertical liftoff in Florida, bring back something safely.
Leonard Kleinrock: September 2, 1969, is when the first I.M.P. was connected to the first host, and that happened at U.C.L.A. We didn’t even have a camera or a tape recorder or a written record of that event. I mean, who noticed? Nobody did. Nineteen sixty-nine was quite a year. Man on the moon. Woodstock. Mets won the World Series. Charles Manson starts killing these people here in Los Angeles. And the Internet was born. Well, the first four everybody knew about. Nobody knew about the Internet.
So the switch arrives. Nobody notices. However, a month later, Stanford Research Institute gets their I.M.P., and they connect their host to their switch. Think of a square box, our computer, connected to a circle, which is the I.M.P., 5, 10 feet away. There’s another I.M.P. 400 miles north of us in Menlo Park, basically at Stanford Research Institute. And there’s a high-speed line connecting those two. We are now prepared to connect two hosts together over this fledgling network.
So on October 29, 1969, at 10:30 in the evening, you will find in a log, a notebook log that I have in my office at U.C.L.A., an entry which says, “Talked to SRI host to host.” If you want to be, shall I say, poetic about it, the September event was when the infant Internet took its first breath.”
…Continue reading the fascinating article on the Internet and people who built it @ VanityFair.com