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

Putin’s Saber Rattling

Earlier this week, President Biden reversed his 2022 decision, authorizing the provision of antipersonnel land mines to the Ukrainian government. It follows an earlier Administration authorization to allow the use of an advanced American missile system capable of striking as deep as 100 miles inside Russian territory. The US election season may be ending, but both Russia and the West show no indication of stepping down the conflict. Russian propaganda continues to swell as the Kremlin increases its threats to use nuclear weapons against the West. Last week Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the pro-Kremlin think tank Valdai Discussion Club (VDC), published an article on growing nuclear tensions in the region. Official Russian language in the last few years has been threatening. Since the US election, rhetoric like that in the Sushentsov article, has approached the level of nuclear blackmail. The VDC article’s main theme centers on Russia’s intent to directly confront the West militarily if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) becomes involved in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. “On the one hand, these threats are intended to frighten the West, but on the other, Russian propagandists themselves are starting to believe in the inevitability of escalation,” according to Ksenia Kirillova of the Jamestown Foundation. On November 11, Sushentsov wrote that “The conflict will reach a completely new level, with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the entire world.” Kirillova points out that Putin’s distorted image of the world is divorced from reality and is causing the Kremlin to issue demands that are impossible to fulfill. Financial and other Russian resources needed to support Putin’s war are growing scarcer at the same time. This week the Kremlin announced a reduction of payments to its soldiers. Recently North Korea acknowledged it was sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine as Putin is running out of bodies to use as cannon fire. The war is not going well for Russia. One question floating around the Washington intelligence community is whether Putin will act out of desperation before President-elect Trump assumes office. In recent months the Russian propaganda machine is spewing out materials from fairly reputable analytical platforms inside the country. Kirillova says that “Kremlin ‘experts’ do not conceal that such threats are only intended to break the West psychologically, as they themselves are not prepared for full-scale nuclear war.” Despite Russia’s lack of preparation for an all-out war with the West, the expanding nuclear rhetoric carries with it an increase in the threat of a full-scale war in multiple theaters of operation. In June 2023 a founder of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, called for “delivering a pre-emptive strike of retaliation” on Poland to force the West to surrender. In the previous month, Dmitry Suslov, a direct of research programs at the policy center proposed organizing “a demonstration nuclear explosion” aimed at intimidating the West. In September, President Putin announced a reappraisal of Russian nuclear doctrine after speaking earlier in the year at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and jokingly calling Suslov a “scary person.” Pavel Baev, writing in the European Daily Monitor, says “Putin intends his announcement to mark an escalation of nuclear brinkmanship and influence the proceedings of future Ukrainian peace efforts.” Putin is expanding the list of environmental conditions that are acceptable for using a nuclear weapon and incorporating it into Russian military doctrine. Baev adds that “The ups and downs of Russian brinkmanship are disconnected from the kinetic battles of the war, correlating instead with Ukrainian peace offensives, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s first peace summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland.” Despite the increase in vitriolic language, in a You Tube video published a week before the US presidential election, Karaganov openly assured the West the primary goal of the escalation is to break the American spirit and that of the West, not outright nuclear war. By Election Day in the US, with political prognosticators predicting a win for former president Trump, Karaganov changed his tune and called for an increased role in nuclear deterrence. Kirillova points out that Western concessions to Russia are unlikely to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation. The distorted reality inside the Kremlin continues to push that President-elect Trump is an adherent of “world government,” that Ukraine will create a nuclear weapon, and Russia must prepare for a nuclear conflagration to achieve its ambitions for a new world order. President-elect Trump has indicated he will not agree to concessions that destabilize Europe, the Middle East or other regions. Going forward a strong US foreign policy may be the most stabilizing course the West can count on to restrain Putin and his intent to rebuild the Russian empire. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Illustration: Pixabay

Our Latest Television Program

New Era in World Affairs

There will be a dramatic change in Washington in the aftermath of the election. What will this mean for America’s national security and foreign affairs? Our guests, former CIA officer and Vice President at the Center for Security Policy Clair Lopez, along with ret. Col. John Mills, (author of The Nation Will Follow) provide extraordinary insights. If you missed the program on your local station, catch it here: https://rumble.com/v5oonnb-the-american-political-zone-november-12-2024.html