Four US states demand restraining order to stop internet power handover to ICANN Four states' attorneys general have filed suit to prevent the transition of critical internet functions from the US government to non-profit ICANN this Friday. The lawsuit from Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada seeks a temporary restraining order that would prevent the IANA contract from expiring on September 30. (If or when …
As you would expect from a lawsuit lodged by states' top lawyers, the content and explanations within the lawsuit over how the internet works and the role of the NTIA and ICANN is largely accurate – a rarity in this area.
OK, who told them, or did they crib something from Wikipedia?
That and also "who put them up to this?" and "why only those 4 states"?
I find it rather interesting that this is being spearheaded by the Texas AG, a post formerly inhabited by Ted Cruz, and the arguments sound amazingly similar to those he put forward in his little committee hearing on this contract.
OK,you invented the Internet and you want to keep it ? OK, you can keep it. But not anything that uses WWW as a prefix because that was invented elsewhere. So feel free to use FTP and IRC etc. the rest of the world don't mind.
(with apologies to all Americans with an IQ in double digits who aren't married to their sister)
OK,you invented the Internet and you want to keep it ? OK, you can keep it. But not anything that uses WWW as a prefix because that was invented elsewhere. So feel free to use FTP and IRC etc. the rest of the world don't mind.
(with apologies to all Americans with an IQ in double digits who aren't married to their sister)
First, using "www" as a FQDN prefix wasn't invented anywhere, per se. It's the HTTP standard to which you refer (perhaps your double-digit IQ is in the way?).
Second, the rights to domain prefixes aren't yours to assign or provide, so world+dog will just ignore that.
Third, you really need to get out more. Your understanding of Americans is dubious at best. I suggest that you don't base it on what you see in TV and the movies.
> both AZ and NV, while the do make news, are toss-up states - they both have an equal amount of extreme BS
AZ has only recently became purple and only due to Trump stirring up the minority hornet nest (GOP still holds all statewide offices as well as a near super majority in the state legislature last I heard). As a result the Dems in the state are very disorganized and tend more toward blue dog types. NV has the Reid and Mormon mafia but even he at his worse is not in the same league of crazy as that Angle woman he beat last election. Again if Kasich is the nominee Nevada leans GOP and AZ never becomes purple instead of Trump possibly pissing both away.
Texas is concerned that ICANN might do bad things. Despite the fact that it would effectively be suicide for the organisation, they want assurances.
Shame they don't apply that logic elsewhere. "Want to buy a gun? OK, just prove you will _never_ suffer from mental illness, become a criminal or lose your temper."
As a Brit, I find it a bit annoying that .com, .gov etc are effectively reserved for the US, but as first adopters and incumbents it makes no sense to change that.
You are allowed to write the word SEX you know. The fact that you write s*x just shows your attitude towards it.
He also capitalised it, so I guess it was used as a proper noun. Perhaps it was actually "Sox", and was referencing the trademarked name of a sue-happy baseball team? Do NV brothels collectively have a team? The Nevada CockSox?
Yep brothels (not in the cities generally) and gambling are legal but at least some years back if they found one seed of pot in your car it was a felony. Can't have people indulging in sin the state can't tax. Today with decriminalization in the air I am sure they will soon suddenly have an epiphany (haven't looked lately if already happened) hey pot ain't so bad after all now we can tax it. Can say looking like Arizona is about to completely decriminalize pot though. Sure they will use the tax to build more private prisons though.
Ah the joys of being an Phoenix metro taxpayer. Never any money for schools but plenty of money for private prisons. Never enough money for drug treatment or anything but Florida (Arizona with humidity) quality child protective services but plenty of money to defend Sheriff Joe from obvious criminal contempt in Federal court and for him and his deputies to fly around the world investigating Obama's birth certificate. Truly the land of Barry Goldwater so of course we would be leading the charge with my tax payer money. Here's to being 49th out of 50 states in per pupil spending.
>Here's to being 49th out of 50 states in per pupil spending.
Turns out when there is a lot of old white transplants (ie snowbirds, ie Trump supporters etc) in your state they show remarkable resistance to providing basic education (especially to the ethnics or the poors and after all their grand kids get great education back in Massachusetts even as they rail on NE liberals). They are all for their tax money scoring political points however so bring on more legal costs, standing be damned. Phoenix main problem is elections are held in November and not July when all the old farts disappear.
This post has been deleted by its author
The states full of tea party folks are throwing a fit because the inept tea party Joe the plumber types they sent to DC weren't able to basically get anything done? (Obama didn't even have to veto anything but I guess they did succeed in making disaster recovery partisan now) Right, carry on.
The First Amendment -DOES NOT- guarantee, in any way, a platform for people to speak their minds; it only prevents the -Federal Government- from unduly restricting a private citizen from public speaking or practicing their religion. The internet (other than forums hosted by the government specifically for use by the public) is a completely private entity where the First Amendment does not apply.
How is it that I, a citizen of Norway, know more about the US Constitution than the politicians in charge there? Especially someone like an Attorney General, whose entire role is to advise the state on whether its actions are in line with the US Constitution (well, also to represent the state in legal matters).
>Attorney General, whose entire role is to advise the state on whether its actions are in line with the US Constitution
Google Tom Horne lol. His replacement is just as much a partisan hack just a little less stupid so far. At least out here if you want decent law enforcement you make sure the person is not selected by the voters.
Oh dear...let me explain;
Give me ten Born US Citizens and ten folks that just passed their Citizen's Test, three US Citizens understand the Constitution correctly vs seven immigrants. Zero members of Congress actually understand it (though the fucking House read it like what, four times?
The take-away will always devolve to 'Oh no, those rights are for Us, not Them. America is BiPolar, didn't you know?
I've never understood how Americans think making policing political (by electing Sheriff's) could ever be counted as a good thing! I would actually love to hear that there was a rational basis for this other than that it's a historical throwback to when the west of the US was conquered.
I would love to also know why there is absolutely no desire for Americans to end this practice? You all hate and distrust politicians, so why on earth would you elect one to lead your local police force?
I've never understood how Americans think making policing political (by electing Sheriff's) could ever be counted as a good thing!
Policing by the state is an inherently political thing, whether there are elections involved or not. It's the power that corrupts, not the election process.
This post has been deleted by its author
>so why on earth would you elect one to lead your local police force?
In most places including Phoenix the local police doing the real work are the city and state police who are often not political. The sheriff is the county police (and in Maricopa) there more for the cameras than to investigate 400 serious sex crimes he ignored for years.
Actually the impact of the US First Constitutional Amendment is rather broad. Legal precedent has defined the First Amendment as essentially the freedom from prosecution for practicing personal expression. So while it guarantees no forum, it protects the individual from state persecution. Which is a rather large deal, compared to no protection at all. People have had to endure some rather nasty things, just because of what they said, that someone in a position of state authority did not like.
l'll upvote you but add a small caveat: as a result of a little thing we call the Civil War the US Constitution was amended to include its 14th Amendment, which provided that all the rights protected by the US Constitution now applied to the states. As a result state governments are also prohibited fron interfering with free speech to the same extent as the federal government (unless the state's own constitution provided greater protection, but that's a discussion for another day).
The IANA contract at the heart of the argument only points to other servers. So, for example, if you wish to go to "example.com," the query will go first to the root zone file – edited by the IANA contract – and it will say where to go to find all the addresses underneath .com. It is that file – in this case run by Verisign – that then points to individual website addresses.
(In reality of course, there is an enormous amount of extra capacity and caching built into the internet, so your computer will very rarely, if ever, go directly to either the root zone file or even Verisign's file to find out where "example.com" is.)
This last presents the possibility that IANA could be made irrelevant. As part of that caching the root zone is mirrored. If the operators of the mirrors were to decide that one of their number should be the primary instead of IANA then IANA becomes irrelevant or, at best just another mirror. Ongoing governance issues around the IANA contract provide a plausible enough pretext for such a move, at least on a temporary basis, should they so decide.
"The process also received an enormous amount of attention, so it is going to be very hard for the states to argue persuasively that the public comment process that is designed to ensure that decisions are not made in secret is valid in this case."
There's a difference between a lot of attention and an official public comment period. An official comment period involves gathering public comments over an established period of time to be reviewed and taken into consideration by the office/department that is proposing the law/regulation/change in administrative practices etc. Just because you're aware of something doesn't mean you have the ability to directly comment to the decision makers.
BTW: I'm a proud Arizonan!
Its simple - created with US taxpayer dollars. Initially expanded with US taxpayer dollars and US businesses. Expanded around the globe for US military with US taxpayer dollars.... do you see the very simple pattern? US TAXPAYER DOLLARS... That is why all other country domains have their country designation to differentiate from the originating country - the US. The US owns it and should not relinquish control to a 3rd world organization.
the eventual transition of IANA's functions to ICANN has always been in a public discussion and planning stage on various planning documents, forums and mailing lists for as long as i can remember (more than 20+ years), with nothing hidden about the transition intent and purpose.
At one point i think it was even suggested that the United Nations should create a new agency from scratch to take over both IANA and ICANN's functions.. but now it seems that ICANN will just become that body, with or without United Nations' involvement.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/y2k-2-0-is-the-us-government-set-to-give-away-the-internet-saturday/
However, the way these people frame the issue makes me think they are clueless about technology and they were just hit with a cluebat (or were probably just hired to throw in a spanner in the works) by pretending the world is not prepared about this.
My interpretation of their complaints is that when the usual rules that they apply to others have now been applied to them - they are now pissed off because the rules should not apply to them.
Their view of the transition probably goes something like this: (quotes from HHGTTG)
Mr Prosser: But, Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
Arthur: Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.
Mr Prosser: But the plans were on display…
Arthur: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
Mr Prosser: That’s the display department.
Arthur: With a torch.
Mr Prosser: The lights had probably gone out.
Arthur: So had the stairs.
Mr Prosser: But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?
Arthur: Yes yes I did. It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.
[....]
People of Earth, your attention, please. This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council. As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system. And regrettably, your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you.
[...]
There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. ... What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.
/HHGTTG quotes
--
using a coat icon for this comment... please give us a towel icon too :)
i try to type www as little as possible
bookmarks toolbar, single icons
yep i think we should stop domain names,, google ect point most of the web traffic to where it wants to go, so take back all the millions of registered ip's from ford etc, hide the address bar by default, and lets just have lovely numbers for those of us who favour them.. Everyone else can use search sugestions, its way faster just hitting f than typing fazebook after all..
Who looks after the ip's - oh - erm - cisco ??
No one owns the Internet. The Internet is an inter-network of networks maintained by the consent of many "owners". The owners are a multitude of network operators, big and small, public and private, domestic and foreign, who have agreed to work together in accordance with a set of strict, well-defined technical standards whose complexity would make the heads of most politicians, including Ted Cruz and Joe Arpaio, explode.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
