the message from the clown car
They are the official party of God™ after all and God only loves Americans. Plus they don't want to risk anyone able to get in the way of them getting their porn discreetly off the internet.
The planned transition of the internet's critical technical functions from the US government to a technical body may come under further attack after the Republican Party officially agreed to block it on Monday. The Republican Platform for 2016 [PDF] was formally approved during a chaotic first day of the party's national …
At least this side of the world the impression is that every utterance is already a spittle-flecked scream of rage: every action of the current government is a plot (probably treasonous), every contradiction is an attack, etc. The knob is already set firmly to "ten" - when something really bad happens how will they reach for "eleven"?
I know it's an election year but is there no more space for actual discussion of important topics, preferably lightly leavened with facts? Or does this still happen but doesn't get reported since the gibberings of the likes of Alex Jones are more attention-grabbing?
I know it's an election year but is there no more space for actual discussion of important topics, preferably lightly leavened with facts?
Short answer: No.
The knob is already set firmly to "ten" - when something really bad happens how will they reach for "eleven"?
Short answer: Nuclear launch codes.
I'm believing that the only real solution to the quandary of Trump and Clinton is Gary Johnson. But then again, the real dirt won't start getting tossed until after the conventions. Then it's load, lock, and fire at each other.
>At least this side of the world the impression is that every utterance is already a spittle-flecked scream of rage
The rage and tough talk is a weak veneer to cover the pants wetting fear. The illusion of safety, conformity and homogenization is all that matters.
International = "Under US Control"
Democratic = "Under US MICC Control"
Freedom-loving = "Valium'd enough to take it up the rear"
On the verge of revolution = "Soon to be back under control, especially if a potential menace to Israel"
Putin the menace = "This guy isn't doggie much"
etc...
"Does someone want to explain what international means to them? Removing sole US control of the root zones makes it international."
Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric, removing the US department of commerce supervision makes it captureable and this is pretty much a SPoF in a lot of areas
The DoC has been admirably hands-off for the last 35 years. It's clear that some groups are itching to try and take control and push their own agendas, so in this case it's best that it stays where it is.
Hang on, let me check something, ah yes :
Regulator : a person or thing that regulates
Umm, just for clarification : the IANA is what, if not a regulator ?
These people are so used to spouting nonsense they don't even realize when they contradict their own statement. In the same sentence at that.
I'm as amazed as you are that I find myself in any way close to the US Republican party on any topic, but as I do it's incumbent upon me to state this and specify my reasons.
The function performed by IANA is critical to the functioning of the internet. The solution being presented is far from perfect. It seems to me madness to state that the solution for something critical is far from perfect. This is not a critical part of your car, it's a critical part of a global system upon which countless people depend in all sorts of ways.
To pick a comparison that will prompt a strong emotional response. Choosing a far from perfect solution for critical parts of an aircraft that you will be travelling in would probably result in you declining to board said aircraft.
Let's take a pragmatic approach, you say. Question: Is the proposed solution better or worse than the current solution? -> pick the best. But accepting a solution that is far from perfect risks the effects of the law of unintended consequences. We can be sure how the current solution operates in reality. We cannot be sure how the new solution will operate in reality. So it's seems prudent to make the new solution as good as it possibly can be by rejecting solutions that do not meet the standard of "pretty good".
The way ICANN has worked over the years and in particular the way it has conducted itself as an organisation in the last few years makes it untrustworthy at best.
I'm not an expert on this topic and this is just the opinion of an outsider based on what is being reported. That said I'm also a very active internet user and so I do have an interest in how it is governed.
Just pointing this out but if you replace "ICANN" with "US Government" your statements carry the exact same value and truth.
And of the 2 institutions I know which I would rather trust, the one with no politicians. The primary reason (and it is only one of many) is that its easier to replace a dodgy employee than it is to replace a dodgy politician - and ALL politicians are dodgy.
There is a single sentence with the word ICANN and if you replace that with US Government the sentence does indeed have some truth to it. But I have made no comment about what the solution should be, I've only stated what should be very obvious - selecting a poor solution for something critical makes no sense.
You should also have a look at the way that ICANN conducts itself vis-a-vis selection of staff and the options to remove them from their positions. It is not very encouraging.
You should also really look at the record of many politicians who are working in that very difficult environment while maintaining their ideals. Dr. Mo Mowlem is a case in point, someone whom I knew personally and struggle to place in that all encompassing box of "dodgy politicians" you have created.
This Web site has an international audience, but here in the US we all know the real reason the Obama administration is trying to remove ICANN from US control: Google, which dictates White House technology policy. (The US CTO was hired directly from big Obama donor Google, as were many other staffers.) If ICANN is not under the control of the US government, it is harder for US courts (or any court, for that matter) to take down domains that host pirated content. Google wants piracy to go unpunished, and so this is an important agenda item for it.