The only positive thing since 1996 (except maybe Trump or the aggressive new mindset he is triggering), the only element on the world stage today that is even slowing the march of the genocidal NWO, is free speech on the Internet.
.
.
…..This has snuck up on almost all of us, me included
Stefan Molyneux here – at the last minute — complaining, explaining and warning … The US government, which is bound by the First Amendment and freedom of speech, and which created the Internet (originally the Pentagon DARPAnet) has in a rather quiet, sneaky, low-profile way handed OVER control of the Net to some very vague international body….”A COLLECTION OF EXPERTS.”
Arizona, Texas, Nevada and Oklahoma have argued the handover is unconstitutional.
(Reuters) “ A long-planned transfer of the internet’s technical management from the U.S. government to a global community of stakeholders is expected to take place on Saturday despite last-minute attempts by conservative politicians and officials to delay the changeover.
The U.S. Department of Commerce is due to cede stewardship of ICANN, or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, as scheduled after a lawsuit seeking to halt the transition was denied by a federal judge in Texas on Friday.
The U.S. government has been the primary manager of the internet’s address book since 1988 largely because it was invented in the country. Critics of the handover have attempted to block or delay it on grounds it could jeopardize free speech online, claims that the Obama administration and technology companies have said lack merit.
The lawsuit filed on Wednesday against the federal government by the Republican states of Arizona, Texas, Nevada and Oklahoma argued the handover was unconstitutional and required congressional approval.
ICANN, a California-based nonprofit, manages the database for top-level domain names such as .com and .net and their corresponding numeric addresses that allow computers to connect.
After the transfer, ICANN will be governed by a collection of academics, technical experts, private industry and government representatives, public interest advocates and individual users around the world, in what it calls a “multi-stakeholder process.”
***
Hunh??????? Who are this “collection”? Inquiring minds want to know!
How would a President Killary (here insanely cackling as usual) and Angela Merkel treat free speech?
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and German Chancellor Angela Merkel laugh during a State Luncheon in honor of the German chancellor, Tuesday, June 7, 2011, at the State Department in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
.
We KNOW that is was Merkel who successfully urged Zuckerberg of Facebook to censor free speech at FB.
Admittedly, there is a bit of a lie by omission in the statements of ICANN. By agreeing to hand the institution over to an international stage, we are agreeing to censor access to small websites or alternate-view websites that don’t conform to the standards or views of the corporation in charge of the new ICANN. In effect, we would be blocking access to small websites, limiting freedom of speech over the internet, and possibly in the future having internet access begin to mirror the same level of restrictions that television has.Then, the international corporation would decide what websites you can access, and if the website you want to have a look at doesn’t adhere to the corporation’s view, it will simply become inaccessible.
There is also the question of political relevance; that is, why the urgency? Why require that this be passed during the Obama administration just before an election, and without congressional input?
> “The US government has never, and has never had the ability to, set the direction of the (ICANN) community’s policy development work based on First Amendment ideas,” ICANN said in a statement. “Yet that is exactly what Senator Cruz is suggesting. The US government has no decreased role. Other governments have no increased role. There is simply no change to governmental involvement in policy development work in ICANN.”[0]This is the primary issue I have with every single one of ICANN’s rebuttals[1]: nothing will change (so they say), and yet, here we are, making a change.
Okay, then, here’s a stupid question: why is a change being made? Ted Cruz may be an ass, but that doesn’t make ICANN’s position correct.
If nothing will change, they guess what? No change is necessary. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
If something will change, then ICANN should be entirely up front about what that change exactly is. Instead, we get a bunch of denials that nothing will change, the US has no current role anyway, yadda yadda yadda, but serious you guys, we have to change this right now.
We’re talking about managing the DNS system here, and that’s not an “insignificant” thing, as other commenters have suggested.
Yes, existing ASes can already block specific domains today. Fine. But ICANN could easily become a Title IX-type situation, where ASes are forced to block specific domain names in order to remain part of the global Internet system.[2]
It’s true it doesn’t police ASes that direction today, under the existing ICANN governance model, but there’s (to my knowledge) no reason why that couldn’t be true today (under US control), and I see no reason why adding “more stakeholders” will make the situation any less likely in the future. If anything, it makes it more likely: look at the UN. Certainly ICANN itself doesn’t think it’s any less likely, but here’s what they don’t say: with this change, it’ll be extremely hard for US citizens to fix if it does come about. That’s not “insignificant” to me.
[2] For instance, consider how the US Justice Dept. is using “Dear Colleague” letters in 2016 to force schools to adopt a less-rigorous sexual assault policy or face loss of federal funding. ICANN could apply similar pressure to ASes in the future (not funding, but zone updates or whatever).
…..Can Trump revoke this?
It seems that the jewsmedia and Obama have quietly slipped this transfer in there. Why has Trump said nothing? Is he just so busy he is uninformed?, I admit that I was, and yet I as a 7-day-a-week blogger try to stay very well-read and go through two dozen current-events emails and websites a day.
Admittedly, there is a bit of a lie by omission in the statements of ICANN. By agreeing to hand the institution over to an international stage, we are agreeing to censor access to small websites or alternate-view websites that don’t conform to the standards or views of the corporation in charge of the new ICANN. In effect, we would be blocking access to small websites, limiting freedom of speech over the internet, and possibly in the future having internet access begin to mirror the same level of restrictions that television has.Then, the international corporation would decide what websites you can access, and if the website you want to have a look at doesn’t adhere to the corporation’s view, it will simply become inaccessible.
There is also the question of political relevance; that is, why the urgency? Why require that this be passed during the Obama administration just before an election, and without congressional input?
reply