International censorship – USA Gov Policy

Congress is fighting the Obama Administration’s plans to transfer the internet to international control.

Shock waves were sent throughout the nation when the Obama Administration’s Department of Commerce proclaimed on March 14 that it would transfer control of the internet out of U.S. hands. Currently, The United States has the responsibility of managing domain names through its contract with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN.)

It’s an essential mission, as it prevents dictatorial regimes from stopping dissenting or noncomplying voices from expressing their views. The transfer responds to demands from nations such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea to provide a means of censoring free speech even beyond their own borders.

Representatives John Shimkus (R-Illinois, Todd Rokita (R-Indiana), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) Joe Barton (R-Texas), Renee Ellmers (R-North Carolina) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio) are the leading advocates for Congressional action to halt President Obama’s move. Their legislation is known as the DOTCOM (Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters) Act of 2014

The legislation’s official description: Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act of 2014 or the DOTCOM Act of 2014 – Prohibits the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information from relinquishing or agreeing to any proposal relating to the relinquishment of the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) over Internet domain name system functions (including the authoritative root zone file, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions, and related root zone management functions) until the Comptroller General (GAO), within one year after the NTIA receives a relinquishment proposal developed in a process convened by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) at the request of the NTIA, submits a report to Congress regarding the role of the NTIA with respect to the Internet domain name system.Requires such GAO report to include: (1) advantages and disadvantages of such relinquishment of NTIA responsibility; (2) any principles or criteria that the NTIA sets for relinquishment proposals, as well as an analysis of each proposal received by the NTIA; (3) the processes used by the NTIA and any other federal agencies for evaluating proposals; (4) any national security concerns; and (5) a definition of “multistakeholder model” as used by the NTIA with respect to Internet policymaking and governance.

The nitric oxide deposition in the male reproductive organ cheap cialis 20mg visit here is not a critical problem standing in the age of science. viagra uk sales greyandgrey.com The third degree is that of parental control switches. In this way it cures impotence, so buy Zenegra online now. greyandgrey.com purchase cheap levitra There is a brand levitra solution! If you’re desperately looking for sure treatment at home, then this website is your ultimate destination. The report would include a discussion and analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the change and address the national security concerns raised by relinquishing U.S. oversight. It would also require GAO to provide a definition of term ‘multistakeholder model’ as used by NTIA with respect to Internet policymaking and governance.

According to a statement by Shimkus, Rokita and Blackburn, “In the month of March alone we’ve seen Russia block opposition websites, Turkey ban Twitter, China place new restrictions on online video, and a top Malaysian politician pledge to censor the internet if he is given the chance … This isn’t a theoretical debate. There are real authoritarian governments in the world today who have no tolerance for the free flow of information and ideas. What possible benefit could come from giving the Vladimir Putins of the world a new venue to push their anti-freedom agendas?

“Russia and China have sought such a venue in the past through the United Nation’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU). According to Russian state-funded media, ‘a takeover of the Internet by a UN supranational agency’would aim to “standardize the behavior of countries concerning information and cyberspace.

“The internet is the single greatest economic machine created in the last 50 years and is a shining example of our American Exceptionalism… It is against our own national economic interest to relinquish control, especially without a clear path forward that will protect internet freedom and American interests.

“We can’t let the Internet turn into another Russian land grab. America shouldn’t surrender its leadership on the world stage to a ‘multistakeholder model’ that’s controlled by foreign governments. It’s imperative that this administration reports to Congress before they can take any steps that would turn over control of the Internet…”

“We have to consider the long-term implications of relinquishing our oversight role because once it’s gone, it’s gone for good.”

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.