Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans The Internet China Communications Democrats Network Networking United States Politics

Trump Opposes Plan For US To Hand Over Internet Oversight To a Global Governance (reuters.com) 527

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump opposes a long-planned transition of oversight of the internet's technical management from the U.S. government to a global community of stakeholders, his campaign said in a statement on Wednesday. Congress should block the handover, scheduled to occur on Oct. 1, "or internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost," Stephen Miller, national policy director for the Trump campaign, said in a statement. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a former presidential primary foe of Trump's who has refused to endorse the real estate developer, has led a movement in Congress to block the transition, arguing it could cede control of the internet itself to authoritarian regimes like Russia and China and threaten online freedom. Technical experts have said those claims are baseless, and that a delay will backfire by undermining U.S. credibility in future international negotiations over internet standards and security. Publicly proposed in March 2014, the transfer of oversight of the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is expected to go forward unless Congress votes to block the move. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supports the Obama administration's planned transition to a global community of technologists, civil society groups and internet users, according to policy positions available on her campaign website.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump Opposes Plan For US To Hand Over Internet Oversight To a Global Governance

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @08:47PM (#52935579)

    When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @08:56PM (#52935629)

      When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.

      Indeed. Nowhere else in the world has the robust guarantees of free speech that America has. The Brits have their libel laws, the French have their "religious symbols" bans. Many EU countries outlaw holocaust denial and/or hate speech.

      I finally agree with Donald on something. Has Hillary taken an official stance on this issue.

      • by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @09:03PM (#52935663) Homepage

        Her campaign [hillaryclinton.com] says she "supports the Department of Commerce’s plans to formally transition its oversight role in the management of the Domain Name System to the global community of stakeholders".

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Just one of the many reasons she's going to lose--along with her open door immigration policy, her support for more H1B visas, her slavish support for the corporatacracy, and a million other ways she wants to sell out America and its citizens. Like the anti-Brexit crowd in Britain, she and her supporters are going to be left shaking her heads in wonderment that most people actually don't like being fucked-over repeatedly by some assholes telling them it's somehow in their best interests to continue to get f

      • by HBI ( 604924 )

        My experience yesterday with NK shills has convinced me that segmenting the net is preferable to allowing countries like that one have any measure of control.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It is an amusing contradiction that they have the strongest free speech laws and yet the US has some of the most restrictive rules on speech of the western world.
        • by ichthus ( 72442 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @10:54PM (#52936173) Homepage

          the US has some of the most restrictive rules on speech of the western world.

          Back that shit up with factual examples, or get the fuck out.

          • So what you're saying is, you want him to stop speaking unless he says what you want him to say...?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 )

      And before anyone says it, yeah the U.S. was wrong on Snowden and Assange and many other cases. But who else would you rather have calling the shots? A bunch of European countries who consider criticizing Islam a hate crime, or who want to ban all non-SJW's from being allowed to speak lest they hurt some Snowflake's feelings? Or maybe one of the hundreds of vile dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and religious wackjobs across the world who want to ban all speech criticizing them and their ideology/religi

      • How about putting it in the hands of a giant committee [wikipedia.org]? That'd guarantee endless discussions, and zero potentially harmful changes. Sounds a lot more appealing to me than risking control by someone like Trump or Hillary.

      • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @10:59PM (#52936199)

        So who else is left who even stands a CHANCE of preserving any semblance of free speech on the internet?

        A country that seizes domains registered in foreign countries at the request of corporations?

        Sorry I'd rather live with anti-hate speech laws, than do whatever the hell a corporation decides to allow you to do laws.

      • by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

        What has the US done about Assange that could be considered wrong?

        And Snowden broke the law. It's not as if he doesn't admit it. You think it's wrong that the US would like him to stand trial?

      • Dude, nowhere in the whole world you have as many SJW nutjobs as in the US. The stuff I get to see from US colleges couldn't fly here in a million times, with "safe spaces" and "microaggessions". The dean would simply kick you out and tell you to come back when you're willing to learn instead of trying to turn his university into a clown college.

    • by pgnas ( 749325 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @09:06PM (#52935683) Journal
      Are you absolutely out of your mind? Seriously, look at your options, complete censorship vs not. This administration has clearly shown you their roadmap and you still are willing to accept this? I am truly beside myself when I see how easily people are willing to give in to complete control and regulation, how this US administration uses supremacy and somehow convinced you it is tolerance. Do you know why the Internet "blew up"? It was a LACK of regulation. I don't like all of the things that Donald Trump stands for however he is a capitalist, not a socialist, not a communist or a fascist. I think we have had it far too easy for some reason we become completely lazy and prefer to be taken care of rather than getting our hands dirty, sweaty in a little bit and doing some actual work, but I digress. Regulation is control, regulation is not thinking for yourself, regulation is admitting you're not capable and regulation is a way of not taking responsibility for your actions. You may want someone to garner your free speech, but I don't and I think if you realized and thought about it a little bit further than just this election you might feel differently.
      • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @09:18PM (#52935735)

        Except the U.S. has already been in charge for 20 years and I've yet to see them seriously try to ban criticism of the U.S. government or its leaders from the internet. Do you seriously think the same would be true if China or Russia had been in charge?

      • by Namarrgon ( 105036 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @09:55PM (#52935903) Homepage

        I think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like [wikipedia.org]. It wasn't all that long ago.

        Capitalism, like every other organisation, needs checks and balances. There's no other way to ensure accountability, and without accountability then unrestrained capitalists can do just as much damage to society as unrestrained communists or dictators. Moderate regulation is a necessary tradeoff to stop psychopath CEOs like Shkreli from efficiently strip-mining their markets to the bone.

        • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @11:13PM (#52936255)

          think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like

          That's not unregulated capitalism, and things are just as bad today: the powerful are just better at keeping a low profile.
          Also, corruption happens just as much in regulated systems as non-regulated systems.

          More regulation does Not eliminate or reduce the problem, not a single bit.

          And the issue is not specific to capitalism, and occurs with ANY system, including communism, where it is the government itself that tends to become corrupted absolutely, See: China/Russia.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The problem with the US is ridiculous copyright laws and the FBI seizing random sites that the MAFFIA doesn't like.

      Maybe Iceland? Realistically though, it's kind of cute that Trump thinks he has a choice here. If the US doesn't keep other countries happy they will just set up their own parallel system. May sites have already moved away from US controlled TLDs.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @09:40PM (#52935823) Journal

      But if other nations don't like our management of it, they'll fork it, and then we'd lose control anyhow, AND have potentially fractured standards.

      It's not as simple as us controlling it versus "them" controlling it. Unfortunately, the us-vs-them portrayal resonates better as a compact political sound-bite.

      • But if other nations don't like our management of it, they'll fork it, and then we'd lose control anyhow, AND have potentially fractured standards.

        It's not as simple as us controlling it versus "them" controlling it. Unfortunately, the us-vs-them portrayal resonates better as a compact political sound-bite.

        I'm sorry, I can't tell if you're saying that as being a good thing, or a bad thing? Do you really think that if a country runs a different DNS service, that it won't just result in most every citizen trying to work around it to get to the "real" internet?

      • by mysidia ( 191772 )

        But if other nations don't like our management of it, they'll fork it, and then we'd lose control anyhow

        Actually, there is practically zero chance of that happening; However, if a large enough community Did get together to fork it, and build the critical mass to re-do things in support of the public interest, then it would be a very good thing.

        Because, you see.... the "Global stakeholder groups" they are talking about..... are actually about a small number of elite and powerful orga

      • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday September 22, 2016 @07:22AM (#52937697) Journal

        Bullshit.

        A more or less open, liberal internet. If China, or Russia, or whomever doesn't like it, they'll fork it? And how does handing control to an organization even more prone to bribery, compulsion, and control by inimical governments in any way ensure that the system remains open? If they "don't like it" that much, they'd fork it anyway. All your proposal does is allow them the opportunity to control the whole thing, not their fork.
        Simply, that's bullshit.

        If someone doesn't like something, you don't GIVE THEM THE OPTION TO CONTROL IT in order to preserve it. That's colossally dumb.

    • When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.

      Including protection for corporate "donations"? It's certainly better off in someone else's hands, but it's got to be the right someone else.

    • When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.

      You're assuming the US has a choice.

      A lot of other countries don't particularly like the idea of the US being in charge of this global resources, and they are already preparing their own root DNS servers. It's not that hard, mirror the current root node and then start forking. Maybe do a bit of censorship, maybe make sure nothing resolves to google.com without a giant cheque.

      International governance doesn't make the problem go away, censorship already exists to a degree, but it makes it politically easier t

    • An overrated comment, in my opinion.

      Personally, I'd much rather see an international body in charge than a country that's become a byword for throwing its weight about, extending its legal tentacles into all corners of the globe, bullying and coercing other countries, and going to war for specious reasons.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @08:54PM (#52935617)

    For example, what happens if I want to access content that another country and/or religion deems offensive to their god?

    Are those people now going to have a say in how the internet should operate? Will they be able to prevent me from viewing such content from another country?

    As much as I hate to admit it, even with all the stuff going on today, the US is still one of the least fucked up countries on the planet. It worries me what will happen to the internet if everyone suddenly gets their say in how it's operated. And I don't say this as an American either, since I'm Canadian.

  • I don't agree with everything Trump wants to do It's pretty obvious to anyone that knows anything Trumps position is way better for the internet than turning it over to an international panel that can start censoring the hell out of it. The U.S. is already not prefect in that regard but they are WAY better than, say, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea... or China.

    The fact is Trump has been demonized beyond belief on so many issues where Hillary is worse... Trump is far less racist than Hillary (just look a

    • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @10:31PM (#52936073)

      I don't agree with everything Trump wants to do It's pretty obvious to anyone that knows anything Trumps position is way better for the internet than turning it over to an international panel that can start censoring the hell out of it.

      Trump is infamous for his proclivity for suing people and desire to use libel law against critics. If the Internet were governed by the US under a Trump administration I think you'd here a lot of grumbling from his administration about doing something about websites that are being unfair to Trump or the administration.

      He's already threatened to use the power of the presidency to go after Amazon because Bezos owns the Washington Post and it's been mean to him.

      Trump is far less racist than Hillary (just look at past Hillary remarks like arriving late because she was on "Colored People Time").

      Wow, your evidence of Hillary's racism is a misremembered SNL sketch [youtube.com]?

      It wasn't even intentionally racist, it was supposed to be a joke about a politician inadvertently saying something racist (which they ironically did).

      I thought Trumpites understood the good "Hillary is a racist" stuff is back in the mid-90s with all the super-predator stuff, you really need to catch up on your twitter.

      Trump chose a black woman to win and work with on the Apprentice - sure it's a TV show but she did work for him and supports him, as do a number of prominent black celebrities.

      You're literally making the argument that Trump can't be racist because he has black friends.

      Trump also wanted to cooler evaluate NATO commitments before taking action,

      He seemingly wants to extort allies into paying the US for protection, I say seemingly because he doesn't have coherent foreign policy.

      and yet the media portrays him as a warmonger. Why?

      Because he's generally really quick to call for military action and to call for major war crimes like stealing other countries natural resources, up until the military action turns out poorly. And then he hops in a time machine and goes back to change his mind.

    • by Boronx ( 228853 )

      "Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not something they can control. Don’t you agree?"

      -- Donald Trump

      Trump also wanted to cooler evaluate NATO commitments before taking action

      He also wants the option to refuse to defend countries which are already in NATO. He, and apparently you, don't understand what NATO is for. It is not a defense cost sharing club. It's a keep Europe Out of War police agency. You c

  • by SYSS Mouse ( 694626 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @09:41PM (#52935829) Homepage

    Isn't America getting authoritarian itself, especially the Republican?

  • because the mega-corps who run the show want us to. They're afraid Europe, China & India will make their own Internet with blackjack and hookers and they'll have to spend money supporting their apps on 2 different internets. The internet isn't for porn, it's for offloading the cost of your corps communication infrastructure onto the taxpayer.
  • Any policy director who thinks that ICANN is relevant should be fired. Trump isn't very smart but he should be smart enough to realize that ICANN prioritizes on money above all else. Realizing that he should be well aware that they haven't had any meaningful power or control in a long time. That he managed to find a policy person who can't figure this out is astonishing.
  • Sort of amazed (Score:5, Informative)

    by ramriot ( 1354111 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @10:46PM (#52936145)

    I accept a few posters going off the deep end, not reading the copy or just plain not understanding the issues, but practically every post with a score missed the point entirely.

    This whole issue is just a boring technical matter. The only reason it is news is that politicians with an axe to grind want to make it so.

    ICANN has been running successfully as an international corporation with multinational stakeholders for much more than a decade now. Its one remaining tie to the US is the contract that it has with the Department Of Commerce to manage internet names and numbers. That contract will lapse unless renewed at the end of September and ICANN will then carry on exactly as it has been, except without the theoretical DOC control, the US then becomes a stakeholder like everyone else.

  • Trump also opposes the TPP. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p... [donaldjtrump.com]

MS-DOS must die!

Working...