Sorry if I'm missing something, but what's the context for "President Obama wants to hand over the keys to the Internet to countries like China and Russia"? I can't seem to find the right phrases to google.
[deleted]
Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
31–40 of 101 posts
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#32Sorry if I'm missing something, but what's the context for "President Obama wants to hand over the keys to the Internet to countries like China and Russia"? I can't seem to find the right phrases to google.
Probably related to ICANN being moved out from under the US State Department.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#33Sorry if I'm missing something, but what's the context for "President Obama wants to hand over the keys to the Internet to countries like China and Russia"? I can't seem to find the right phrases to google.
This is a response to the potential internationalization of ICANN, and most importantly, its IANA department.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Auth...
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#34As an international user, it is in my opinion fantastic that the White House is attempting to cede control of key internet infrastructure. Why should a single country act as the custodians of a global service?
They built it. We get to use it because they're nice. And given the ineptitude of supranational governing bodies of late, I'd be perfectly happy for the US to keep running it.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#35Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#36Sorry if I'm missing something, but what's the context for "President Obama wants to hand over the keys to the Internet to countries like China and Russia"? I can't seem to find the right phrases to google.
[deleted]
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#37Sorry if I'm missing something, but what's the context for "President Obama wants to hand over the keys to the Internet to countries like China and Russia"? I can't seem to find the right phrases to google.
This is a response to the potential internationalization of ICANN, and most importantly, its IANA department.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Auth...
Ah, thanks very much! For confused readers like me, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023035462045794396... is a good article linked from the Wikipedia page.
(Google the title "U.S. Plans to Give Up Oversight of Web Domain Manager" and click through from search to avoid the paywall.)
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#38"The Protecting Internet Freedom Act would also ensure that the United States maintains sole ownership of the .gov and .mil top-level domains, which are vital to national security." I almost did a spit take...
I had to prove I was a student multiple times by sending / receiving mail at .edu address. It's not unreasonable for people to assume that if you control a .gov domain you're a legitimate US government agency. I think Internet control should become less US-centric, but I agree with them there'll need to be some effort to deal with the .gov TLD issue.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#39As an international user, it is in my opinion fantastic that the White House is attempting to cede control of key internet infrastructure. Why should a single country act as the custodians of a global service?
Because we have the world's largest military and the world's reserve currency, and use these to balance global security so that postwar liberal democratic norms are protected. Freedom of speech is one of them. We are therefore the only entity in a position to ensure that the internet remains free.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's ours. We created it. We've allowed other countries to use it because it benefits us to do so. I realize this is probably not the popular opinion, but I'm not sure it makes any sense really to give up control over it.
Also, they have a point about the free speech. For a system in which free speech is indispensable (the internet), there is actually only a handful of countries that seem to get the whole "free speech" thing correct, the US among them.
I'm not sure that we're among them as much as we'd like to think. Certainly if your speech is "Whistleblowing", you don't want to be in the US.