So do I trust unelected international organizations or the US government less... That's a tough one.
Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
61–70 of 101 posts
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tenuously was yours (since the original inter net (in the sense of a global network) was a connection of multiple networks and not all of them where in the US, far from it) it certainly isn't anymore. The UK had JANET in the late-70's/early 80's other countries had similar, the US was important and influential but the internet would have existed anyway, the concept of connecting a bunch of disparate networks together…
The UK does own it's telecom systems. If I want a phone number that works in the UK, it's going to be via a UK telecom. Nobody is saying you can't setup a router or networks on your own. But if you want addressing from ICANN, a US company, you have to play by US rules.
> The UK does own it's telecom systems.
I know I used to work in telecomms, my point was that having the first system doesn't mean we should control the ITU in perpetum.
In fact the ITU model is a good example of a model that would work here, the UN runs that and I can ring a phone in America or Azerbaijan.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#63This seems to be less a free speech vs. government censorship issue, and more of an international control vs. one-nation control issue. Whether managed by the ICANN or the NTIA, some government is going to be regulating these standards and domains.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#64Amusing that this technology bill on Duffy's site [1] is titled "C:\Users\CBOSBO~1\AppData\Roaming\SoftQuad\XMetaL\7.0\gen\c\DUFFY_~1.XML - 16.06.08 - DUFFY_110_xml_0.pdf".
Is it common for Congresspersons to use Xmetal software [2] (or its ilk) to edit bills?
[1] https://duffy.house.gov/sites/duffy.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_...
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#65"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.
My university has offered courtesy mail forwarding to alumni since ~2000 (probably a good bit earlier).
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#66Amusing that this technology bill on Duffy's site [1] is titled "C:\Users\CBOSBO~1\AppData\Roaming\SoftQuad\XMetaL\7.0\gen\c\DUFFY_~1.XML - 16.06.08 - DUFFY_110_xml_0.pdf". Is it common for Congresspersons to use Xmetal software [2] (or its ilk) to edit bills? [1] https://duffy.house.gov/sites/duffy.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMetaL
From the second paragraph of your own wiki link:
> Government agencies also use XMetaL for tracking legislation.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#67Doesn't the president have veto power? Seems kind of silly to make a law that says Obama can't do something when he can just veto said law.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#68"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.
Yes, and think how unfair it is to students at universities in other countries that they don't get .edu addresses. Why should the US have this monopoly?
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#69Doesn't the president have veto power? Seems kind of silly to make a law that says Obama can't do something when he can just veto said law.
Congress can override a veto with a 2/3 majority.
Re: Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act
#70Are there any indications that Verisign might be pulling the strings here? It seems like they would be the party getting the most benefit out of this, i.e. protection against having foreign interests take away their registry business. Or am I mistaken about how control of that deal works?