ENJOY YE THE INTERNET WHILE YE MAY.

An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.
If the U.S. abdicates internet stewardship, the United Nations might take control.
By L. Gordon Crovitz
Aug. 28, 2016 5:52 p.m. ET


When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”

It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.

Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.

Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, called it “simply stunning” that the “politically blinded Obama administration missed the obvious point that Icann loses its antitrust shield should the government relinquish control.”

The administration might not have considered the antitrust issue, which would have been naive. Or perhaps in its arrogance the administration knew all along Icann would lose its antitrust immunity and look to the U.N. as an alternative. Congress could have voted to give Icann an antitrust exemption, but the internet giveaway plan is too flawed for legislative approval.

As the administration spent the past two years preparing to give up the contract with Icann, it also stopped actively overseeing the group. That allowed Icann to abuse its monopoly over internet domains, which earns it hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Earlier this month, an independent review within Icann called the organization “simply not credible” in how it handled the application for the .inc, .llc and .llp domains. The independent review found Icann staffers were “intimately involved” in evaluating their own work. A company called Dot Registry had worked with officials of U.S. states to create a system ensuring anyone using these Web addresses was a legitimate registered company. Icann rejected Dot Registry’s application as a community, which would have resulted in lowered fees to Icann.

Delaware’s secretary of state objected: “Legitimate policy concerns have been systematically brushed to the curb by Icann staffers well-skilled at manufacturing bureaucratic processes to disguise pre-determined decisions.” Dot Registry’s lawyer, Arif Ali of the Dechert firm, told me last week his experience made clear “Icann is not ready to govern itself.”

...............................................................

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Mf587....9&rs=0&p=0&r=0

Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #3

---

It Took One Killer Question from Ted Cruz to Show Why Americans Should Fear Giving Up Internet Control

Zitat

---

That question, which Cruz had to ask twice: "Is ICANN bound by the First Amendment?"

[ICANN CEO Mr. Göran] Marby initially replied: "I think you know the answer to that question."

Sen. Cruz tried again:"I'm asking you for your views."

Mr. Marby's blunt response:"To my understanding, no."

That is all that many Americans need to know.

---

http://ijr.com/2016/09/704534-it-took-on...ternet-control/

---

Here's my jaded take. I don't trust Cruz one iota so I went to wiki took look up the contract the US had to administer ICANN. As much as I enjoy the Cruz Dog and Pony Show, it is like Gowdy's - re all talk and no substantive action

To explain the last contract signed was in 2006 under GW. Built into it was hand over to "to a multi-stakeholder governance model" . SiInce then step, by step the US government has sidled in this direction.

Why have Ted and his fellow waited for the last second when it was in the works since 2006


"On July 26, 2006, the United States government renewed the contract with ICANN for performance of the IANA function for an additional one to five years.[18] The context of ICANN's relationship with the U.S. government was clarified on September 29, 2006 when ICANN signed a new Memorandum of understanding with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC).[19] This document gave the DOC oversight over some of the ICANN operations.[19][20]

During July 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce reiterated an earlier statement[21] that it has "no plans to transition management of the authoritative root zone file to ICANN". The letter also stresses the separate roles of the IANA and VeriSign.[22]

On September 30, 2009, ICANN signed an agreement with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC), known as the "Affirmation of Commitments", that confirmed ICANN's commitment to a multi-stakeholder governance model, [23] but did not remove it from DOC oversight and control.
On March 10, 2016, ICANN and the DOC signed a historic, culminating agreement to finally remove ICANN and IANA from the control and oversight of the DOC.[24] This agreement is scheduled to go for approval by the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration in April, 2016. This approval must occur before ICANN's current contract with the DOC expires in September, 2016.[needs update]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN#History

[18] United States cedes control of the internet - but what now?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/27/ntia_icann_meeting/
[23]US government finally lets ICANN go
http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-governme...-lets-icann-go/

The text of the 2006 agreement to turn over to private sector, I haven't found private sector defined. :
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/fi...-29sep06-en.pdf

The text of the 2009 Affirmation of Commitment
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/af...s-2009-09-30-en


ICANN Board Transmits IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Recommendations to NTIA

"On 10 March 2016, on behalf of the ICANN multistakeholder community, the ICANN Board transmitted a plan developed by the international Internet community that, if approved, will lead to global stewardship of some key technical Internet functions -- the IANA functions."
https://www.icann.org/stewardship

Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #6

---

---