With all due respect ... did it take a cut and paste to figure that out?
Every fucking thing he's done or supported in his 2 terms is to expand Federal power .... Obamacare? .... Do you know that there is a provision in Obamacare regulations that authorizes your health care provider to send someone to your HOME to inspect your HOME to make sure it is a "HEALTHY" environment and make recommendations to improve YOUR HOME?
And keep in mind that Obaminable has had a cabinet member who perceives firearms as being an "unhealthy condition" ("health risk") in the home!
Do you think all this blubbering Liberals are pissed because a "white man" is going to be President? Their choke hold on you is about to slip away....the onion is about to be pealed .... and their "agenda" dragged out to the curb to be removed from your life!
With all this shit going on ... why would Obaminable want to "transfer" control to the access to the internet away from the U.S. control?
Originally Posted by LexusLover
When I come to this site, I only see one group doing the vast majority of the "blubbering".
If you think the only thing I have against trump is him being a "white man" and you can't come up with any of your own concerns about him being in office then I can't even respond to the enormity of the thought that trump is now your messiah. No flaws in trump? Whatever you say. It's going to be a long 4 years.
"Copy" and paste serves several functions, the main ones being the source of information and the information itself, a person is using to back their opinion or factual claim. Lack of that or a link frequently indicates inaccurate, over or understating, or a misrepresentation of information. Personally I have no problem showing where I get my info from and I don't see a need to put a 5 page article (or similar news story or report or whatever) into my own words. If you don't want to read it, then don't. It the same as iffy posting an hour long video. The point is I show what I base my post on.
When you push the "Quote" button you copy and paste a post. Is that the only copy and paste allowed?
That being said,
Contrary to popular belief, America doesn't own the Internet. But it does, currently, oversee the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the nonprofit entity that controls the critically important Domain Naming System (DNS), which is responsible for coordinating the domain name
hierarchy and
IP addressing for the entire Internet.
This week it was
announced that, by prior arrangement, ICANN will be cut loose on 1 October 2016 from its sole government steward, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and become answerable to multiple stakeholders worldwide, including countries, businesses and technical bodies.
The terms of the transition were laid out in 2014, when NTIA
announced that it was ready to make good on the U.S. government's longstanding
commitment to privatize the Domain Naming System:
From the inception of ICANN, the U.S. Government and Internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary. The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government “is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.” ICANN as an organization has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability and transparency and its technical competence. At the same time, international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance as evidenced by the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum and the resilient stewardship of the various Internet institutions.
The change is expected to have little, if any, effect on end users, nor do proponents of the global multistakeholder model foresee negative consequences to setting ICANN free. Opponents beg to differ, however, viewing it as a threat to both the stability of the Internet and the security of the United States.
Former U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich, for one, termed it "very, very dangerous":
A Townhall.com editorial
predicted a "dangerous erosion of freedom" after the handover takes place:
Since the Internet now permeates our lives in every possible way, it is disturbing that Obama has relinquished U.S. control over its underlying structure. Control will be turned over to a global panel, which will include totalitarian countries that do not value our First Amendment protection of free speech.
But NTIA administrator Lawrence E. Strickling, who has cited Cisco, Google, the Brookings Institution, and the Center for Democracy and Technology as supporters of the transition,
insists there is nothing to fear in privatizing the supervision of domain names and IP numbering:
Our announcement has led to some misunderstanding about our plan with some individuals raising concern that the U.S. government is abandoning the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth. This announcement in no way diminishes our commitment to preserving the Internet as an engine for economic growth and innovation. We will continue to advocate for U.S. interests and an open Internet through our role on ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and in other international venues including the Internet Governance Forum.
A "Myths and Facts"
page on the NTIA web site addresses specific questions about the transition:
Myth:
This transition is “giving the Internet to authoritarian regimes.”
Fact:
The U.S. Government has made it clear that we will not accept a proposal that replaces its role with a government or intergovernmental organization.
The criteria specified by the Administration firmly establish Internet governance as the province of multistakeholder institutions, rather than governments or intergovernmental institutions, and reaffirm our commitment to preserving the Internet as an engine for economic growth, innovation, and free expression.
The U.S. government will only transition its role if and when it receives it receives a satisfactory proposal to replace its role from the global Internet community — the same industry, technical, and civil society entities that have successfully managed the technical functions of Internet governance for nearly twenty years.
Myth:
With the U.S. withdrawal from stewardship over the IANA functions, the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union will take over the Internet – making it easier for repressive regimes to censor speech online.
Fact:
The transition process that is underway will help prevent authoritarian countries from exerting too much influence over the Internet by putting control of key Internet domain name functions in the hands of the global community of Internet stakeholders — specifically industry, technical experts, and civil society — instead of an intergovernmental organization.
Myth:
The U.S. Government transition will lead to blocking of web sites.
Fact:
The Internet is not controlled by any one government or entity. It is a network of networks. The U.S. Government’s role with respect to the Domain Name system is a technical one. Our work has been content neutral and policy and judgment free.
Free expression online exists and flourishes not because of U.S. Government oversight with respect to the Domain Name System, or because of any asserted special relationship that the U.S. has with ICANN. Instead, free expression is protected because of the open, decentralized nature of the Internet and the neutral manner in which the technical aspects of the Internet are managed.
We have made clear in our announcement of the transition that open, decentralized and non-governmental management of the Internet must continue.