ICANN – USA Gov Policy

One of the enduring mysteries of the Obama Administration may be probed in an upcoming Senate hearing. For reasons that have never been adequately explained, the President decided to end U.S. oversight of key internet functions and replace it with a multinational organization influenced in part by countries that engage in censorship.

A key battle in this most significant free speech fight in decades will take place on September 14, as the Senate Subcommittee on “Oversight Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts” convenes a hearing on the potential watershed moment.

According to a release by Subcommittee Chair Ted Cruz, “The hearing will investigate the possible dangers of the Obama administration’s proposal to relinquish oversight of the Internet to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), scheduled to take place on October 1. ICANN is a global organization consisting of 162 countries, including authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia, and Iran, which do not have a First Amendment right to free speech.”

The hearing, entitled “Protecting Internet Freedom: Implications of Ending U.S. Oversight of the Internet” is designed to investigate the possible dangers of the Obama administration’s proposal to relinquish oversight of the Internet to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), scheduled to take place on October 1. ICANN is a global organization consisting of 162 countries, including authoritarian regimes such as China, Russia, and Iran, which do not have a First Amendment right to free speech.

Cruz, along with Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act in June, which seeks to prevent the Obama administration from relinquishing oversight of critical Internet functions and protect national security by ensuring that the United States maintains sole ownership of key functions. The Texas Senator recently unveiled a “countdown clock” site to promote awareness of the September 30 deadline for Congress to take action to stop the administration’s transition.

The Administration seeks to make its move final by October 1. There has been no explanation from the White House about the significance of that date, just as there has been no explanation for the reasons for the move at all.

Opponents are engaging in urgent attempts to stop the move. A website outlines their concerns: “The Obama administration is pushing through a radical proposal to take control of Internet domains …If that proposal goes through, countries like Russia, China, and Iran could be able to censor speech on the Internet, including here in the U.S. by blocking access to sites they don’t like. Right now, the Obama administration’s proposal to give away the Internet is an extraordinary threat to our freedom and it’s one that many Americans don’t know anything about.”
If you are taking some high-dosage medicines since a long time there still utilized today and they work, rapidly and normally to give https://pdxcommercial.com/portland-housing-emergency-renter-protections-extension-portland-city-council/ ordering viagra from india you harder erections, expanded moxie and all the more fulfilling sex… It is quite a disgusting viagra side effects experience, exploring the health market. You should also make Continue Shopping order cheap cialis lifestyle changes and consume healthy diet regularly. The neuromuscular therapy puts concentrated pressure at alternating levels on areas of lowest prices cialis muscle spasm.
Critics of the President’s move note that the White House lacks the funding authority to make the transition. Politico reports that Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), chair of the Commerce Committee, will seek to delay Obama’s internet plans through the upcoming continuing budget resolution.

As noted in a Washington Examiner interview, “Congress has passed legislation to prohibit the federal government from using tax dollars to allow the transition, and pointed out that the feds are constitutionally prohibited from transferring federal property without approval from Congress.”

Numerous organizations advocating free speech and adherence to Constitutional restrictions on presidential spending actions have signed off on a letter to Congressional leaders urging opposition to Obama’s action:

“We write to urge Congress to defend its Power of the Purse—and Internet freedom.

“Our Constitution rests on the idea that the “Power of the Purse” belongs to Congress, not the President … the Administration appears determined to violate clear appropriations prohibiting the transition of the Internet domain system without authorization. If the Administration does not relent, Congress should sue. Congress twice enacted appropriations riders prohibiting any use of taxpayer funds “to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA… This ‘Transition’ would end the U.S. government’s historic role as a guarantor of Internet governance.”

“…Members of both parties should be able to unite around defending the Power of the Purse, the most fundamental Constitutional power of the American People’s elected representatives. If enacted legislation is no longer considered binding, a fundamental check on Executive power will have been lost. Legislators also have a solemn responsibility to future generations to ensure that the future of the Internet is not placed at risk by prematurely ending U.S. oversight…”

The passing of control of key areas of the internet from largely U.S. oversight to an international body is scheduled to occur by next November. By the end of the year, the U.S. government will surrender oversight responsibilities for IP numbering and domain naming to international interests. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, (ICANN) gave its transition plan to the U.S. Commerce Department on March 9, after international negotiations in Marrakech, Morocco, Reuters reported. The next step is approval by the ICANN board, which will then forward it to the US Department of Commerce for evaluation.

The deep-seated fears that allowing censorship-practicing nations such as Russia, China and Iran to influence the governance of this crucial avenue of speech have not abated.

The internet-issues website Fossbytes notes: “In the upcoming days, the U.S. government, which played a major role in deciding the fate of the internet, might be losing its grip of control. According to the reports, not only the US, but all major players are going to have a stake in the control of the Internet in upcoming times…”

Fossbytes also reports that “The United Nations wants to keep the internet open and free at least until the next decade. How successful will it be to keep the internet open and not revise the internet policies for next ten years?”

And of course, all should ask, what happens after ten years? Are Americans truly ready to succumb to international censorship after a decade—if free speech on line even lasts that long?

Writing in Breitbart, John Hayward stated that “Critics of the move worry that the rest of the world, including much of the West, has nothing close to the United States’ ideological commitment to free speech…since ICANN handover was announced, the rest of the world has merrily gone about validating the fears of these critics by censoring and controlling the Internet every way they can…”

According to the health report, ejaculating more than buy viagra twice or thrice per day. Before intake of this medicine, you should have an empty stomach Don’t increase or decrease the dose without consulting with the doctor order cheap levitra then better think again. Hence, it is important for generico levitra on line midwayfire.com an affected man to discuss such issues with their physician. Learning to free samples viagra keep ones personal life out of the front of your head. As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously discussed, international attitudes towards internet freedom lag far behind America’s, and the situation is growing worse, not better. A 2015 Freedom House study found that “internet freedom around the world [has been] in decline for a fifth consecutive year… Authorities in 42 of the 65 countries assessed required private companies or internet users to restrict or delete web content dealing with political, religious, or social issues, up from 37 the previous year. Authorities in 40 of 65 countries imprisoned people for sharing information concerning politics, religion or society through digital networks.” Other limitations were also noted.

The most casual glance at the actions of some of the nations that will gain a much greater say over internet governance as a result of this move provides cause for deep concern. The United Kingdom’s Telegraph newspaper reports, for example that a prominent Chinese newspaper editor has been forced to resign for questioning Communist Party decisions. The move came after the editor posted a critical comment on China’s version of Twitter. The Telegraph notes that “China has a huge online censorship apparatus which removes any comments deemed sensitive…The social media accounts of property tycoon Ren Zhiqiang were shut down last month after he drew the attention of authorities for lambasting state media for swearing absolute loyalty to the Communist Party.”

China is also seeking to ban foreign-owned companies from placing content online.

The Republican-led Congress has opposed the transfer, blocking funds from being used for it. The issue has also surfaced in the U.S. presidential campaign. Ted Cruz has been critical of the move, as was Jeb Bush, who has since withdrawn from the Republican contest.

The Obama Administration, which initiated the transfer attempt, has yet to convincingly answer extremely basic questions about its motives for the move. How does this benefit Americans, or American values such as free speech? Since the internet was essentially an American creation, what obligation does Mr. Obama feel the U.S. has to surrender control?

(History.com describes the initial creation of the net: “The first workable prototype of the Internet came in the late 1960s with the creation of ARPANET, or the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Originally funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, ARPANET used packet switching to allow multiple computers to communicate on a single network. The technology continued to grow in the 1970s after scientists Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf developed Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol, or TCP/IP, a communications model that set standards for how data could be transmitted between multiple networks. ARPANET adopted TCP/IP on January 1, 1983, and from there researchers began to assemble the ‘network of networks’ that became the modern Internet.”)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.