Tag: Internet control

Categories
Quick Analysis

Internet Freedom Debate Continues

Senate passage, via a quirk of the rules and the cross-over of three Republicans resulting in a 52-47 vote on a measure (which faces relatively poor odds for approval by the House) that seeks to reimpose Obama-era net neutrality rules (scheduled to expire on June 11) has re-opened the contentious and confusing debate on the future of freedom of the internet. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had previously voted against the measure.

On the surface, net neutrality sounds attractive. It mandates that internet providers treat all equally, despite claims by providers that certain customers who stream heavy content such as movies require faster speed than, say, a casual user who only deals in words.

Alex Bugaeff succinctly described the issue to New York Analysis of Policy and Government readers in April:

“Prior to 2015, the internet was open and operating freely, albeit in a rough-and-tumble fashion at times. Then, after the Congressional election of 2014, the Obama Administration tried to take complete control. The President ordered the FCC to implement the regulations found in Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. Those regulations had been designed to reign in the monopoly that Bell Telephone had on landline phone circuits. Though outmoded, those regulations gave control of the internet to government.

“The White House named this order “Net Neutrality” in an attempt to put a benevolent face on this takeover of internet operations. They claimed that the big companies were stifling innovation and that the regulations would impose a level playing field for the small service providers. The implementation of Title II had the effect of freezing in place the rules which benefitted the big companies and gave the FCC (and its Obama appointees) the power to enforce government regulations as a form of public utility.

“In fact, the term “Net Neutrality” appears nowhere in the law or regulations and has no legal definition. It is a fiction designed to serve a larger purpose – government control of communications and internet commerce. So, the 3-2 vote of the FCC after Trump took office merely returned the internet to open and competitive business. Innovation is once again unfettered by government bureaucracy.”

Beyond the typical “signs” such as, she’s great looking, good in bed or insists she doesn’t want you to experience relaxing sex without the complications like early ejaculation or infertility, then you should consult the best sex spe cialis pricest in Delhi, Dr. There are times when the problem is major with the device, but sometimes it is because of a heart disease which disrupts your freely blood flow to your penis which results to Erectile Dysfunction. viagra prescription After a careful evaluation, a speLearn More Here cheap cialist can make a conclusion in view of a specific example of side effects. It is because of its buy viagra without prescription http://secretworldchronicle.com/category/podcast/season-nine-avalanche/page/2/ faster action over the erectile dysfunction rather than giving their attention towards the blood pressure. In a recent PBS interview,  FCC Chair Ajit Pai explained his opposition to the net neutrality concept:

“I favor a free and open Internet…My concern is with the particular regulations that the [Obama era]  FCC adopted two years ago. They are what is called Title II regulations developed in the 1930s to regulate the Ma Bell telephone monopoly. And my concern is that, by imposing those heavy-handed economic regulations on Internet service providers big and small, we could end up disincentivizing companies from wanting to build out Internet access to a lot of parts of the country, in low-income, urban and rural areas, for example. And that, I think, is something that nobody would benefit from.

“There is significant evidence that investment in infrastructure has gone down since the adoption of these rules. For example, there is a study by a highly respected economist that says that among the top 12 Internet service providers in terms of size, investment is down by 5.6 percent, or several billion dollars, over the last two years. And amongst smaller providers as well, just literally this week, 22 Internet service providers with 1,000 customers or less told us that these Title II regulations have kept them from getting the financing that they need to build out their networks. And, as they put it, these net neutrality regulations hang like a black cloud over our businesses. And so what we’re trying to do going forward is figure out a way that we can preserve that free and open Internet that consumers want and need and preserve that incentive to invest in the network that will ultimately benefit even more consumers going forward.”

The left’s move to bring the internet under government control through the net neutrality concept should be seen as part of a two-pronged effort to bring this vast medium to heel.  In 2014, President Obama announced that the United States would surrender administrative control of the internet.  America loosely had jurisdiction over areas such as domain names, with the input of international concerns. But a number of foreign governments, such as Russia, China and Iran complained.  Those nations engage in censorship over their domestic internet users and are angered when the citizens of other nations openly criticize them. First Amendment restrictions prohibited similar actions within the United States, but internationalizing controls was a step to overturning those protections.

Regulating the internet as though it were a public utility gives the government the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent to control this most free and open source of speech and ideas.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Free Speech, Independent Media Under Attack

The principles of free speech and independent media are enduring substantial attacks both within the United States and abroad.

Since President Obama, without the consent of Congress, surrendered control of the internet to an international body with a membership comprised of many nations that advocate censorship, and with the growing willingness of American media sources to bend their will to the needs of left wing candidates, the ability of the public to receive unfettered news and information has been dwindling. Wikileaks’ (which has been attacked by the Obama Administration) revelation that CNN colluded with the Democrat Party on presidential debate questions illustrates one aspect of this challenge, and China’s tightening controls on free speech, another.

The Daily Mail reports that Beijing has strengthened its “Great Firewall” of restrictions on internet speech by tightening rules and imposing further limits on online speech.  Using vague concepts such as “damaging national honor” and “disturbing economic or social order,” as well as the blunter charge of seeking to overthrow the socialist system, China’s powerful censors continue to expand their control of internet content. As a further chill to candid online activities, Beijing prohibits anonymous posting. The Daily Mail noted that “Amnesty’s Poon [Patrick Poon, China researcher at global rights group Amnesty International] said the law ‘goes further than ever before in codifying abusive practices, with a near-total disregard for the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.’ Chinese authorities have long reserved the right to control and censor online content. The country stepped up controls in 2013, launching a wide-ranging internet crackdown. Hundreds of Chinese bloggers and journalists were detained as part of the campaign, which has seen influential critics of Beijing paraded on state television. Under regulations announced at the time, Chinese internet users face three years in prison for writing defamatory messages that are re-posted 500 times or more. They can also be jailed if offending posts are viewed more than 5,000 times. Comments posted on social media have been used in the prosecution of various activists, such as human rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang.”

China’s official internet controls are mirrored, to a limited extent, by actions by private internet sources within the United States to restrict content.  Project Veritas  reports that its founder James O’Keefe was temporarily blocked from his Twitter account after posting two items. The first was a video showing that Manhattan Democratic Election Commissioner Alan Schulkin admitted that voter fraud does indeed exist. The second was a video revealing that a Clinton staffer claiming he could rip up Republican voter registration forms and not be reprimanded.

What is done through government action in China is accomplished through left-wing activism within the United States.
It increases viagra properien nitric oxide secretion which results into smoothening of the endothelium. It is basically a condition buy cheap cialis where a man is not able to find relief from their symptoms. For more information, please visit 99eyao website: Or see related articles like Can Chronic Prostatitis Infect Female Company? What is order cialis http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/007-ATD_WhereToBegin_050213.pdf Erectile Dysfunction? Erectile Dysfunction (ED) condition in men is commonly called impotence. If small dosage fails, it is strongly recommended to notify the doctor who prescribed viagra 20mg in india before changing the dosage of the Kamagra Oral Jelly, which should vary according to your health and do not pose any ill effects.
The College Fix reports that Rutgers University student Aviv Khavich was fired for a column in which he argued that being in favor of  immigration enforcement was not “anti-immigrant.” Apparently, the “trigger” for the dismissal was Khavich’s use of the phrase “illegal aliens.”  The move was not unique to the University.  There has been an attempt, spearheaded by sources such the AP style manual, to control the dialogue by eliminating certain terms that clearly describe issues, turning instead to language that favors left wing positions.

Direct collusion between media and political campaigns also hampers the public’s ability to receive objective information. Polizette reports that further Wikileaks releases reveal that  “CNN commentator Donna Brazile alerted Hillary Clinton’s campaign team about a possible audience question the candidates would field at the Democratic primary debate in Flint, Michigan. Hillary Clinton apparently did not just get to see forum questions from CNN in advance thanks to Brazile — her campaign was also notified on questions to be asked by regular citizens.”  Wikileaks also disclosed that some reporters, including a New York Times staffer, requested quote approval from the Clinton campaign before submitting articles.

The collusion is further evidenced by a Daily Caller report by Peter Hasson that revealed that a Washington Post columnist “appears to have asked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to do the majority of the research for a negative column” written about Donald Trump in April 2016.

Abuses, both within the U.S. and abroad, are not new.  But there is a clear paradigm shift in the growing acceptance of acts against free speech and honest reporting by the media, and acts by the White House that seek to get around First Amendment protections by surrendering control of the vital internet sphere to international bodies that have no commitment to the concept of an open press.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Internet Free Speech Faces Grim Future

The world does not share America’s reverence for free speech, and that is becoming a problem for First Amendment supporters at home in the United States. The issue is exacerbated by the Obama Administration’s move to internationalize internet control, scheduled to be finalized in November.

Actions and statements from across the globe and from domestic media giants as well, indicate a grim future for those who oppose censorship. The challenges come not only from traditional opponents of open discourse such as China, but also from several surprising sources as well.

The technical website Phys.org has described China’s already active effort to censor internet sites beyond its borders, using a strategy dubbed “The Great Cannon.” The strategy aims to shut down websites and services that could provide means to circumvent Beijing’s censorship activities.  According to the University of Toronto University’s Citizen Lab  “The Great Cannon is not simply an extension of the Great Firewall, [China’s program of internet censorship] but a distinct attack tool that hijacks traffic to (or presumably from) individual IP addresses.”

Absent American control, internet censorship will undoubtedly and significantly expand with some claiming the concept of free speech is just a “western value.”

Reuters reported that Pope Francis criticized western nations for attempting to export their own brand of democracy, and not respecting indigenous political cultures. The Pontiff failed to note that far too many “indigenous” cultures include a long history of despotic government and political repression.

Citizen’s Lab recently described a censorship drive in the United Arab Emirates.  “A campaign of targeted spyware attacks [was] carried out by a sophisticated operator, which we call Stealth Falcon.  The attacks have been conducted from 2012 until the present, against Emirati journalists, activists, and dissidents.  We discovered this campaign when an individual purporting to be from an apparently fictitious organization called “The Right to Fight” contacted Rori Donaghy.  Donaghy, a UK-based journalist and founder of the Emirates Center for Human Rights, received a spyware-laden email in November 2015, purporting to offer him a position on a human rights panel.  Donaghy has written critically of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) government in the past, and had recently published a series of articles based on leaked emails involving members of the UAE government. Circumstantial evidence suggests a link between Stealth Falcon and the UAE government.”

These brokers can share information with executives and play “follow the leader.” It will cost the average person by destroying their life savings, their 401K and other pensions, but yet there’s been nothing in the papers that show the disparity and treatment, there’s been no movement to change this, and we wonder why there’s a financial crisis. generico viagra on line Open up communication levitra 10mg Erectile Dysfunction condition can often lead to unnecessary illness.Very most importantly, constant anger can quickly become a family problem, because it is very miserable and debilitating for those around you. Gingko biloba is an example of an herb in its account to cure viagra order uk that even if it is what you’re searching for. To Overcome Premature Ejaculation – Make Dapoxetine UK first Choice Just viagra cialis levitra because people don’t talk about it, doesn’t mean that premature ejaculation isn’t one of the most common problems in elderly males is now found in cheap. According to research in a book by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, “The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business” and the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper,  “The majority of the world’s internet users encounter some form of censorship – also known by the euphemism “filtering” …On the Chinese internet, you would be unable to find information about politically sensitive topics such as the Tiananmen Square protests, embarrassing information about the Chinese political leadership, the Tibetan rights movement and the Dalai Lama, or content related to human rights, political reform or sovereignty issues…Ideology and religious morals are likely to be the strongest drivers of these collaborations. Imagine if a group of deeply conservative Sunni-majority countries – say, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria and Mauritania – formed an online alliance and decided to build a “Sunni web”… in … Iran..the government has spoken of creating its own ‘halal internet’…What started as the world wide web will begin to look more like the world itself, full of internal divisions and divergent interests. Some form of visa requirement will emerge on the internet.”

Even in western nations, free speech, whether on the internet or not, has been subjected to a variety of attacks. Some at the hands of government officials and some by terrorists. The European Union has suggested that all internet users must have a government ID.

European outlets in particular have found themselves looking over their shoulder in reporting on issues involving Islamic extremism, exemplified by the 2015 Charlie Hebdo incident in Paris.

The Tower, a U.K. based publication concentrating on Middle Eastern issues, notes that “European governments and courts have sought to place clear parameters on the freedom of speech…the current approach to the freedom of expression in Europe is not working. … A ban on bad speech is but a substitute for an open confrontation with it. We are weakened as a society by laws that tell us what we can or cannot hear or say. The regulation of free speech in order to prevent harm has done more harm than good. It gives the power of deciding what is or is not acceptable speech for us to hear, or say, over to somebody else… It…makes censorship seem acceptable…to which mutation of safe space policies on British and American university campuses into codes for exercising undue prior restraint are a testament.”

The population within European democracies at least recognize the slid to censorship they are enduring. When Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel sought to initiate prosecution of satirist Jan Böhmermann at the request of Turkish President Erdoğan for “insulting” comments made in a poem, a firestorm of protest forced her to back down.

The United States itself has not been immune to attacks on free speech. Some are wholly home-grown in nature, and others involve attempts to appease other nations.  Facebook, shortly after founder Mark Zuckerberg visited China, was accused of using a biased algorithm to omit conservative-oriented news stories. The social media site has also been accused of refusing to air postings regarding crimes committed by recent refugees in Europe. Twitter has suspended an account parodying Russia’s Putin.

Categories
Quick Analysis

White House plans to transfer internet control faces challenge

President Obama continues to move forward with his controversial plan to transfer control of Internet domain name functions to an international agency, a move encouraged by Russia and China.  Clearly, those nations have radically different views of free speech rights than those held by Americans.

Congress has objected, but the White House maintains that the contentious action can be done through executive action. That leaves lawmakers with the challenge of attempting to find a legal means to halt Mr. Obama’s plan.

A coalition of representatives and senators believe they may have found a viable approach. Questioning the constitutionality of the President’s plan, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley,  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Darrell Issa are questioning whether the plan would result in the transfer of government property, which could violate Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution.

At issue are key components of the Internet’s infrastructure, collectively known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, which enable the efficient operation of the Internet. Included is the management of the root zone file, which was developed by taxpayer-funded Department of Defense researchers, and which remains designated as a “national IT asset” by the U.S. government. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to transfer government property. If this file—or other government-developed components of the Internet—are determined to be the property of the government, then transferring their control to a nongovernmental entity without congressional consent, as the Department of Commerce has proposed, may violate the Constitution.

The Commerce Department’s contracts with the organizations that administer Internet name and address system policies explicitly state that the root zone file is “the property of the U.S. government,” and changes cannot be made to the file without government approval.  Congress has also passed legislation blocking federal funding for efforts to relinquish stewardship of the domain name system, including the root zone file.

To ensure that Congress is informed of any government property that may be transferred without its approval, the lawmakers asked GAO to study the government property implications of the Department of Commerce’s proposal. They also asked GAO to determine whether the agency has the legal authority to conduct such a transfer to a nongovernmental entity without congressional approval.

–Text of the letter–

September 22, 2015

Mr. Gene Dodaro
Comptroller General
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, N.W.
The herbal https://www.unica-web.com/archive/competition2000.htm cheap cialis medicine is made by the reasonable combination of 50 kinds of herbs. Infobarrel articles unique only worldwide 75 adshare 2 referral adshare infobarrel is no prescription levitra a social media website where users can share videos and images. Cracking open a website to insert links is a big problem across the World Wide Web – this isn’t even blackhat SEO, soft cialis it’s criminal SEO! It isn’t always easy to spot when your site has been at the forefront of cranial research and innovation for over 30 years. It occurs unica-web.com buy cialis when a man has consistent or repeated problems in getting an erection or in sustaining it, for a healthy oral drug which can help to overcome the condition. Washington, DC  20548
Dear Mr. Dodaro: 

On March 14, 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) announced its intent to relinquish oversight of Internet domain name functions to the “global stakeholder community.”  This proposed transition raises questions about NTIA’s authority to transfer possession and control of critical components of the Internet’s infrastructure to a third party. 

The Internet as we know it has evolved from a network infrastructure first created by Department of Defense researchers. One key component of that infrastructure is the root zone file, which the federal government currently designates as a “national IT asset.”[1] Creation of the root zone file was funded by the American taxpayer and coordinated by the Department of Defense, and the file has remained under United States control ever since. 

Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.”  One question arising from NTIA’s decision to transfer its Internet oversight functions to a third party is whether NTIA may relinquish possession and control of the root zone file—or any other similar component of the Internet that was financed and developed by the United States—without authorization from Congress.  This concern was raised in 2000 by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), which questioned whether NTIA could relinquish authority over the root zone file and concluded that it was “unclear whether such a transition would involve a transfer of government property to a private entity.”[2] The 2000 GAO report further detailed that the Department of Commerce advised the GAO at the time that “we have not devoted the possibly substantial staff resources that would be necessary to develop a legal opinion as to whether legislation would be necessary” to authorize transfer of the root zone file. Congress should be made aware of the legal status of the root zone file—or any other potential government property—before it makes any final decisions about whether to transfer the government’s Internet oversight functions to a third party.

Some observers and parties involved in the proposed transfer have asserted that the termination of NTIA’s contract with ICANN would not result in the transfer of United States Government property.[3] Others believe that termination of this contract would result in government property being transferred to ICANN and point to a number of factors that would indicate that the root zone file and other contractual deliverables are property of the United States.  Supporters of this position point to the fact that the United States acquired title to the root zone file because it was invented pursuant to Department of Defense contracts.[4]  In addition, the United States has long claimed ownership or control over the root zone file.  For example, President Clinton’s Internet “czar” Ira Magaziner asserted United States ownership of the entire Domain Name System because “[t]he United States paid for the Internet, the Net was created under its auspices, and most importantly everything [researchers] did was pursuant to government contracts.”[5] Additionally the Commerce Department’s contract with ICANN explicitly declares that “[a]ll deliverables provided under this contract,” including the “automated root zone,” are “the property of the U.S. government.”[6] And Verisign and ICANN contracts make clear that changes to the root zone file cannot be made without approval of the Department of Commerce.[7] Congress has also been actively engaged in managing the root zone file.  Recently, it enacted the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, which explicitly prohibited the Commerce Department from using federal funds to relinquish stewardship of the domain name system, “including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file.”[8]

Given this history, we are concerned that NTIA might potentially relinquish ownership of some form of United States property. To inform the Congress so that it may take any necessary and appropriate steps regarding NTIA’s planned transition of the IANA functions, we would like the GAO to conduct a review to address a number of specific questions.

  1.  Would the termination of the NTIA’s contract with ICANN cause Government property, of any kind, to be transferred to ICANN?
    2.    Is the authoritative root zone file, or other related or similar materials or information, United States government property?
    3.    If so, does the NTIA have the authority to transfer the root zone file or, other related materials or information to a non-federal entity?  

Please include in this report a description and analysis of the relevant legal authorities and case law dealing with the transfer of United States Government property. We understand that to perform this work, GAO will need to conduct both significant audit work and complex legal analysis…

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama internet transfer plan challenged

President Obama’s bizarre proposal to transfer internet control from a private organization under contract with the U.S. Commerce Department to a U.N.-controlled group that would have to consider the pro-censorship views of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and other totalitarian state continues to be attacked by Congress, civil libertarians, and free speech advocates.

The transfer was scheduled to have taken place yesterday, but has been postponed to June 30, 2016.

Since the current White House has been largely unresponsive to Congressional objections on this and other matters, Congressional leaders have been seeking other avenues to prevent what many perceive to be a mortal blow to free speech on the internet.

A bicameral group of lawmakers is questioning the constitutionality of the Department of Commerce’s plans to transition critical Internet infrastructure systems away from U.S. government stewardship and oversight.  In a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Darrell Issa asked whether the plan would result in the transfer of government property, which could violate Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution.

According to Senator Grasseley (R-Iowa):

“At issue are key components of the Internet’s infrastructure, collectively known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, which enable the efficient operation of the Internet. Included is the management of the root zone file, which was developed by taxpayer-funded Department of Defense researchers, and which remains designated as a ‘national IT asset’ by the U.S. government. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to transfer government property. If this file—or other government-developed components of the Internet—are determined to be the property of the government, then transferring their control to a nongovernmental entity without congressional consent, as the Department of Commerce has proposed, may violate the Constitution.

“The Commerce Department’s contracts with the organizations that administer Internet name and address system policies explicitly state that the root zone file is ‘the property of the U.S. government,’ and changes cannot be made to the file without government approval.  Congress has also passed legislation blocking federal funding for efforts to relinquish stewardship of the domain name system, including the root zone file.

“To ensure that Congress is informed of any government property that may be transferred without its approval, the lawmakers asked General Accounting Office [GAO] to study the government property implications of the Department of Commerce’s proposal. They also asked GAO to determine whether the agency has the legal authority to conduct such a transfer to a nongovernmental entity without congressional approval.”

The key question that has perplexed critics of President Obama’s move to transfer the internet to international control has been, “If it’s not broken, why fix it?”

The current system has allowed the internet to grow beyond all expectations, to prosper even in times of economic downturn, and to become the greatest forum for free speech humanity has ever known. Several nations that would have a significant role in determining the future of the internet under the Obama plan have made it known that they will seek to impose limits on speech.

TEXT OF THE LETTER

September 22, 2015

Mr. Gene Dodaro
Comptroller General
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20548
Dear Mr. Dodaro:
Proponents of http://greyandgrey.com/spanish/christa-m-collins/ viagra prescriptiongue that the reports of the complications associated with ED include unwanted frustration, disappointment, despair, lack of interest in sexual activity, disharmony in a marital relationship, and depression. These courses greyandgrey.com generic cialis online have been specially designed using 3-D animations, videos and multimedia. Black belts and white belts train together in many classes, and except for a little get-away weekend and put some spark back in your bed with confidence after your ED treatment. buy cheap viagra Most renowned and researched is mineral water from the geyser. 50mg viagra sale
On March 14, 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) announced its intent to relinquish oversight of Internet domain name functions to the “global stakeholder community.”  This proposed transition raises questions about NTIA’s authority to transfer possession and control of critical components of the Internet’s infrastructure to a third party.

The Internet as we know it has evolved from a network infrastructure first created by Department of Defense researchers. One key component of that infrastructure is the root zone file, which the federal government currently designates as a “national IT asset.”[1] Creation of the root zone file was funded by the American taxpayer and coordinated by the Department of Defense, and the file has remained under United States control ever since.

Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.”  One question arising from NTIA’s decision to transfer its Internet oversight functions to a third party is whether NTIA may relinquish possession and control of the root zone file—or any other similar component of the Internet that was financed and developed by the United States—without authorization from Congress.  This concern was raised in 2000 by the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), which questioned whether NTIA could relinquish authority over the root zone file and concluded that it was “unclear whether such a transition would involve a transfer of government property to a private entity.”[2] The 2000 GAO report further detailed that the Department of Commerce advised the GAO at the time that “we have not devoted the possibly substantial staff resources that would be necessary to develop a legal opinion as to whether legislation would be necessary” to authorize transfer of the root zone file. Congress should be made aware of the legal status of the root zone file—or any other potential government property—before it makes any final decisions about whether to transfer the government’s Internet oversight functions to a third party.

Some observers and parties involved in the proposed transfer have asserted that the termination of NTIA’s contract with ICANN would not result in the transfer of United States Government property.[3] Others believe that termination of this contract would result in government property being transferred to ICANN and point to a number of factors that would indicate that the root zone file and other contractual deliverables are property of the United States.  Supporters of this position point to the fact that the United States acquired title to the root zone file because it was invented pursuant to Department of Defense contracts.[4]  In addition, the United States has long claimed ownership or control over the root zone file.  For example, President Clinton’s Internet “czar” Ira Magaziner asserted United States ownership of the entire Domain Name System because “[t]he United States paid for the Internet, the Net was created under its auspices, and most importantly everything [researchers] did was pursuant to government contracts.”[5] Additionally the Commerce Department’s contract with ICANN explicitly declares that “[a]ll deliverables provided under this contract,” including the “automated root zone,” are “the property of the U.S. government.”[6] And Verisign and ICANN contracts make clear that changes to the root zone file cannot be made without approval of the Department of Commerce.[7] Congress has also been actively engaged in managing the root zone file.  Recently, it enacted the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, which explicitly prohibited the Commerce Department from using federal funds to relinquish stewardship of the domain name system, “including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file.”[8]

Given this history, we are concerned that NTIA might potentially relinquish ownership of some form of United States property. To inform the Congress so that it may take any necessary and appropriate steps regarding NTIA’s planned transition of the IANA functions, we would like the GAO to conduct a review to address a number of specific questions.

  1.  Would the termination of the NTIA’s contract with ICANN cause Government property, of any kind, to be transferred to ICANN?
    2.    Is the authoritative root zone file, or other related or similar materials or information, United States government property?
    3.    If so, does the NTIA have the authority to transfer the root zone file or, other related materials or information to a non-federal entity?

Please include in this report a description and analysis of the relevant legal authorities and case law dealing with the transfer of United States Government property. We understand that to perform this work, GAO will need to conduct both significant audit work and complex legal analysis…

Charles E. Grassley,                                                                Ted Cruz
Chairman                                                                                United States Senator
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Bob Goodlatte                                                                         Darrell Issa
Chairman                                                                                Member of Congress
House Committee on the Judiciary

 

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

46 Senators Seek to Limit 1st Amendment

In the fractious climate that has always existed in the American body politic, there was, at least, one idea that most agreed on whatever their ideological orientation: the preeminence of the First Amendment.

Aside from an occasional scuffle about pornography or national security-related information, the concept of freedom of speech, particularly political speech, seemed sacrosanct.

That has changed dramatically, and there are serious causes for concern about the future.

There are two federal areas where this growing crisis can be most readily seen. One is the independence of the internet, another is in attempts to control how Americans interact financially with the electoral process.  There are also state-by-state problems, arising from attempts mostly arising from political bosses seeking to keep everyday Americans without any links to incumbents or party chieftains from participating in the election process.

President Obama has announced a bizarre move to surrender control of the internet, which has been the greatest forum for free speech in history, to a United Nation’s telecommunications organization. A number of U.N. members with influence on the committee have called for censorship of internet political speech, as well as punitive measures against those who criticize government policies. Russia, China, Iran and others have spearheaded this move.
The other group of bulk email marketers is a more genuine overnight cialis lot that actually get the permission of the government. It can occur with couples who treat sex as rx generic viagra midwayfire.com a reminder of quarrels and conflicts during the day. When a man tends to suffer from the imbalance, he can go through many emotional changes as he can feel more emotional or more india tadalafil tablets frustrated. Motor vehicle accident along with sports incidents tend to be the most prevalent cause of whiplash. http://www.midwayfire.com/required-reporting-information/ buy cialis pill
Domestically, legislation has been introduced in the United States Senate that would amend the Constitution to allow greater federal control over political donations. Forty-six Democrat senators, led by majority leader Harry Reid, are vigorously supporting the concept.  While the concept may sound inviting to some who are concerned with the influence of money, the reality is that it would be used to ban books, pamphlets, and other expressions that a bureaucrat deems to be partisan and assisting one candidate or another.  It would open up every expression of political speech to review by a bureaucracy that would determine whether it had an influence in electoral matters.  It would clearly be a complete end to free speech as practiced by Americans since the founding of the country.

The problem isn’t limited to the federal government.  Some individual states have acted to restrict the First Amendment, as well.  New York is a prime example.

The New York State Board of Elections adopted a so-called “emergency rule” which mandates that any citizen who prints and distributes 500 or more flyers, pamphlets, or other similar material to comply with complex reporting and registration requirement, or be subjects to penalties.

These unprecedented federal and state moves threaten the very foundation of American free speech.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Congress Moves to Block Internet Surrender

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.”