# Days Away From Giving Over the Internet



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Frank Gaffney said this about Obama's intention to give up control of internet registration:



> What they're preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. It gets pretty arcane, but the point is, if you think that the freedom of the Internet - whether it's the ability of people to communicate freely information on it, or whether you think of it as an engine for free enterprise, let alone if you understand the contribution that it makes these days to national security - including, by the way, the operations of our critical infrastructure - you will understand that the United States retaining a measure of quality control as to what's going on with how the Internet is populated with names and numbers, domains, websites and the like, is a very important thing.
> 
> And for absolutely no good reason, other than people - or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea - don't want us to have any say in this and would like to be able to change things around so that they cannot only restrict all the things the Internet does to help their own people become familiar with the terrible they're being subjected to, at the hands of their totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, but they want to take those freedoms - freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise - away from us, as well.


Frank Gaffney on Obama's Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar: 'We've Got Three Days to Fix This'

Do you have a site or a blog that isn't in compliance with the wishes of Saudi Arabia? China? England?

Do you think it is bad enough that YouTube demonetizes channels that aren't PC enough? What do you think about Google pushing down sites that are not toeing the political line?

Wait until the U.S. is no longer in control of the internet.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Well progressives can't impose their fairness doctrine on talk radio maybe they'll have the "international" community pound their web sites. I sense a lot of new taxation; can anyone remember anything international through government that is more affordable?


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

They get rid of my Squatch porn and some heads are going to roll.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

If you ever thought sites like this may be monitored....you can turn that thinking into reality.

It absolutely amazes me we are letting the Kenyan slug get away with this.


----------



## Mosinator762x54r (Nov 4, 2015)

Does this happen on October 1st???????????????? That is when yuan joins the SDR basket. Do you think this is a coincidence?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...nclusion-sdr-basket-now-comes-hard-part-china


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Buckwheat and friends are doing everything they can to insure this is a New World Order before he leaves office.

He warned us...live, in person and filmed...*"WE ARE FIVE DAYS AWAY FROM FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."* - BARACK OBAMA, OCTOBER 30, 2008

He wasn't kidding.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

This has nothing to do with regulating the content on the internet.
Nobody "controls" the entire internet. Some countries have installed firewalls to block things, but that isn't anything that can affect any other country.
There has ALWAYS been a body that regulates internet addressing. Every time you start a website, you have to get permission to use an IP address. That IP address is ON LEASE from this regulating body. They had to buy rights to use/rent that address.
This was done by necessity to ensure that no two front facing entities ever had the same "internet phone number" of sorts. The chaos that would ensue if each country got to set up their own addressing would be phenomenal.

I don't feel like going into the technical details about it, but it all boils down to a contract that the US had for a period of time to manage this, and that contract is now ending. The US does NOT want to see any other government or inter-governmental body take over the role we had under contract. This move will put the "internet community" in charge of addressing and naming.

NOTHING... and I repeat again... NOTHING about this has ANYTHING to do with regulating the content on the internet.
Please don't listen to people who only wish to rile you up for some reason.
This move decentralizes the function, and returns it to a private entity. Isn't that more trustworthy then a government... ANY GOVERNMENT, having control, even over this?


----------



## Mosinator762x54r (Nov 4, 2015)

I can live with that. Our government hasn't been all that great lately anyway...cough cough...PRISM...cough cough Comey....



Kauboy said:


> This has nothing to do with regulating the content on the internet.
> Nobody "controls" the entire internet. Some countries have installed firewalls to block things, but that isn't anything that can affect any other country.
> There has ALWAYS been a body that regulates internet addressing. Every time you start a website, you have to get permission to use an IP address. That IP address is ON LEASE from this regulating body. They had to buy rights to use/rent that address.
> This was done by necessity to ensure that no two front facing entities ever had the same "internet phone number" of sorts. The chaos that would ensue if each country got to set up their own addressing would be phenomenal.
> ...


----------



## Mosinator762x54r (Nov 4, 2015)

Thanks for talking me off the ledge Kauboy.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

If that be the case, then why is it important that the U.S. is no longer in control?

Don't go into the details. Save the details for a few more years. Assuming there is a few more years.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Enjoy: https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions


----------



## Mosinator762x54r (Nov 4, 2015)

Kauboy may need to look at this.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Mosinator762x54r said:


> Kauboy may need to look at this.


He's an idiot who is spouting nonsense.

I pasted a link just above your post. Please have a look.


----------



## Mosinator762x54r (Nov 4, 2015)

OK man. Just getting a fellow PF's opinion. I'm more concerned about the SDR basket. I'll have a look at the link. Just shows you what kind of misinformation can be out there. That guy has a ton of followers with tons of few. That stuff must spread like wild fire on social media.


Kauboy said:


> He's an idiot who is spouting nonsense.
> 
> I pasted a link just above your post. Please have a look.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Mosinator762x54r said:


> OK man. Just getting a fellow PF's opinion. I'm more concerned about the SDR basket. I'll have a look at the link. Just shows you what kind of misinformation can be out there. That guy has a ton of followers with tons of few. That stuff must spread like wild fire on social media.


"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill
:tango_face_wink:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

> On Wednesday's "Sean Hannity Show," FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai (R) stated that the plan to "essentially give up the US oversight role&#8230;of the Internet" to ICANN is something that should worry anyone who cherishes "free expression, and free speech rights generally," and could potentially cede oversight of the Internet to "foreign governments who might not share our values." He further stated that such a move is "irreversible."


FCC Commissioner on Internet Oversight Switch: 'If You Cherish Free Expression,' 'You Should Be Worried,' This Is 'Irreversible' - Breitbart

Seems the FCC chairman doesn't agree.

Why is it so important to Obama that we give up control? Does he ever think of what is good for this country?


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

> Does he ever think of what is good for this country?


No....


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> FCC Commissioner on Internet Oversight Switch: 'If You Cherish Free Expression,' 'You Should Be Worried,' This Is 'Irreversible' - Breitbart
> 
> Seems the FCC chairman doesn't agree.
> 
> Why is it so important to Obama that we give up control? Does he ever think of what is good for this country?


Then he isn't paying attention either.
Just because someone holds a position of presumed authority doesn't automatically make them intelligent, or right. (appeal to authority)


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Then he isn't paying attention either.
> Just because someone holds a position of presumed authority doesn't automatically make them intelligent, or right. (appeal to authority)


I read what ICANN states. Why is it to be trusted?

Again, why is Obama so hell-bent to hand over control to the international community?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> I read what ICANN states. Why is it to be trusted?
> 
> Again, why is Obama so hell-bent to hand over control to the international community?


It's to be trusted because it has nothing at all to do with content.
He's not hell-bent on anything. The contract agreement is ending. This is the inevitable result.
The function if ICANN is to provide a phone-book type function to the internet. They DO NOT FILTER ANYTHING.
What actual evidence, IF ANY, does any quack out there on the internet offer in opposition to this?
Every single thing is nothing but conjecture that has been built on top of other conjecture, or flat out lies.

Give me anything solid. Anything.
Show me any evidence where ICANN has ever dealt with the content on the internet, or even assisted other nations with filtering it.
Any.

My gosh, if Obama had some master plan to filter or control content that US users see, he would be instituting firewall filtering like China or Saudi Arabia has. That is wholly and completely different from ending a management contract for internet addressing.

EDIT: Look guys, I know this is a prepper site, and we are often hyper-vigilant when it comes to perceived aggressions against our rights, but sometimes the most obvious explanation is the truth. Not everything is a conspiracy. We need to hone our critical thinking skills, and stop relying on random internet personas who make flashy videos, to give us answers. Even the FCC chairman is looking a bit nutty. He was spot on when discussing the net neutrality issue, but he's not using facts when discussing this one.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> It's to be trusted because it has nothing at all to do with content.
> He's not hell-bent on anything. The contract agreement is ending. This is the inevitable result.
> The function if ICANN is to provide a phone-book type function to the internet. They DO NOT FILTER ANYTHING.
> What actual evidence, IF ANY, does any quack out there on the internet offer in opposition to this?
> ...


Thanks for the information and clearing things up a bit.

I think it's very easy to apply mistrust these days and those that do (me included) do so because of what we witness every day with what seems...every aspect of society.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Robie said:


> Thanks for the information and clearing things up a bit.
> 
> I think it's very easy to apply mistrust these days and those that do (me included) do so because of what we witness every day with what seems...every aspect of society.


I totally get that, and am glad to be part of a community that is always on watch.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

@Kauboy is cleary one of Obama's DHS goons. Someone get a rope.

Sent from a Galaxy S5 far far away.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Sasquatch said:


> @Kauboy is cleary one of Obama's DHS goons. Someone get a rope.
> 
> Sent from a Galaxy S5 far far away.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> It's to be trusted because it has nothing at all to do with content.
> He's not hell-bent on anything. The contract agreement is ending. This is the inevitable result.
> The function if ICANN is to provide a phone-book type function to the internet. They DO NOT FILTER ANYTHING.
> What actual evidence, IF ANY, does any quack out there on the internet offer in opposition to this?
> ...


Help me out some more, please.

You say the contract is up. What contract? Wasn't the internet a U.S. invention? Has anyone else ever been in control of IP assigning? Why is it a matter of the administration handing to another entity if it is a matter of a contract?


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Your new internet masters....

Meet the New Authoritarian Masters of the Internet - Breitbart


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Help me out some more, please.
> 
> You say the contract is up. What contract? Wasn't the internet a U.S. invention? Has anyone else ever been in control of IP assigning? Why is it a matter of the administration handing to another entity if it is a matter of a contract?


Ok, let me clarify a few things.
Yes, "the internet" is a U.S. invention in so much as we developed the fledgling network at DARPA, ARPANET.
However, that was only development and implementation of a new technology. Once the TCP/IP protocol caught on, "the internet" became it's own entity. All it took was two people knowing each other's IP addresses, and you could communicate between two computers across wired networks that shared IP tables.
It wasn't long before somebody came up with the brilliant idea of implementing a naming structure that would convert an easily remembered and readable name into the IP address, so we didn't have to remember the 4 octet numerical address of our favorite site. We could just type in "www.blahblah.com" and this new server, called a "Domain Name Server", would lookup our alpha address in it's database, and properly associate it with the internet protocol address of the server our target site resided on.
Again, this was great! But what happened when everybody did this on their own, with their own managed systems? Conflict.
So, a unified body was established to oversee and set rules for the use of, these naming and addressing systems. Because the internet had become a global entity, all major countries played a role in developing this unified body. Those countries are now part of an advisory board that still plays a role.

From what I can gather, the United States National Telecommunications And Information Administration(NTIA), part of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, has contracted the work of the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" (IANA) to the "Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" (ICANN).
You might be asking, what functions does the IANA do? They are as follows:
(1) the coordination of the assignment of technical Internet protocol parameters;
(2) the administration of certain responsibilities associated with Internet DNS root zone management;
(3) the allocation of Internet numbering resources; and
(4) other services related to the management of the .ARPA and .INT top-level domains.

As you can see, there is NOTHING we have controlled remotely relating to any kind of "free speech" or content control. Thus, we can't possibly be giving up any such authority.

For *18 YEARS*(that means Obama, Bush, AND Clinton administrations) there has been a plan to transition this function completely over to ICANN, and not have it performed just under contract.
There were stipulations put in place that would block this transition if not met, and now we have reached a time when these stipulations have been met to the satisfaction of the United States.

Here's a blog post from the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator, Lawrence Strickling.
He summarizes it quite well. The 3rd paragraph is probably the most helpful in relieving the worries about this being some "Obama plot". Pay special attention to the line, "*NTIA's current stewardship role was intended to be temporary.*"
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/update-iana-transition


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

RedLion said:


> Your new internet masters....
> 
> Meet the New Authoritarian Masters of the Internet - Breitbart


More conjecture. No facts.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Ok, let me clarify a few things.
> Yes, "the internet" is a U.S. invention in so much as we developed the fledgling network at DARPA, ARPANET.
> However, that was only development and implementation of a new technology. Once the TCP/IP protocol caught on, "the internet" became it's own entity. All it took was two people knowing each other's IP addresses, and you could communicate between two computers across wired networks that shared IP tables.
> It wasn't long before somebody came up with the brilliant idea of implementing a naming structure that would convert an easily remembered and readable name into the IP address, so we didn't have to remember the 4 octet numerical address of our favorite site. We could just type in "www.blahblah.com" and this new server, called a "Domain Name Server", would lookup our alpha address in it's database, and properly associate it with the internet protocol address of the server our target site resided on.
> ...


OK; you have made me feel better.

I reserve the right to suspicious of the future, though.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

KLauboy...

Any comment on this?

An Internet Giveaway to the U.N. - WSJ


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Robie said:


> KLauboy...
> 
> Any comment on this?
> 
> An Internet Giveaway to the U.N. - WSJ


From the link I gave:


> *Will governments have more control over the Internet after the transition?*
> 
> No. The transition proposal does not increase the role of governments over the Internet or ICANN as an organization. *The multistakeholder model appropriately limits the influence of governments and intergovernmental organizations to an advisory role in policy development.* More than 160 governments actively participate as a single committee and must come to a consensus before policy advice can be issued.
> 
> *After the transition, there will be times where the ICANN Board must give special consideration to the public policy advice of governments. However, this will only happen when there is no objection from any government in the committee - which includes the United States. This is a stricter requirement than is currently in place for government advice.*


There is no way for any government, or intergovernmental entity(like the U.N.) to take over the process.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Oh goody... 4 states are suing to stop the transition. lain:
State AGs sue to stop Obama's internet transition - POLITICO

All of their reasons are unfounded, per the answers I provided in the link, but that doesn't seem to matter.

I love when politicians think they understand things...


----------



## azrancher (Dec 14, 2014)

Well gee, this transfer was announced months ago, and just now somebody wakes up?

Obummer is doing this to insure his place in the United Nations... remember you heard it here first!

*Rancher*


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

There's nothing to "wake up" to. It's been in the works for 18 years and amounts to nothing.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

azrancher said:


> Well gee, this transfer was announced months ago, and just now somebody wakes up?
> 
> Obummer is doing this to insure his place in the United Nations... remember you heard it here first!
> 
> *Rancher*


I've been watching this for months. I assumed it wouldn't happen.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Oh goody... 4 states are suing to stop the transition. lain:
> State AGs sue to stop Obama's internet transition - POLITICO
> 
> All of their reasons are unfounded, per the answers I provided in the link, but that doesn't seem to matter.
> ...


Thing of it is, a lot of people seem to be concerned. All of them are idiots, it seems.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Denton said:


> Thing of it is, a lot of people seem to be concerned. All of them are idiots, it seems.


It seems .......


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

Does this mean there will be more internet hacking ? If so , we are all in deep :vs_poop:.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Thing of it is, a lot of people seem to be concerned. All of them are idiots, it seems.


When someone willfully chooses to ignore facts, but instead relies solely on rumor and hearsay to form their opinion, I'm not sure what else to call it.
If there were any facts to support the opposition to this, I'd be more than willing to entertain it, but there has yet to be anything presented.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

It's done.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/us-cuts-cord-internet-oversight-113602357.html

We shoud know something in a few years. Assuming we have the attention span to remember cause and effect.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Denton said:


> It's done.
> https://www.yahoo.com/tech/us-cuts-cord-internet-oversight-113602357.html
> 
> We shoud know something in a few years. Assuming we have the attention span to remember cause and effect.


If you think it will take that long, then I disagree. This has been planned for a long time and I'll bet you start seeing changes soon. They have had several years or longer to plan the what, how and when.


----------

