CTRL + F "IANA" 0 RESULTS

>>56138953
>Becoming schizophrenically worried when Uncle Sam loses control of something
>>>/pol/
>>>/out/

The largest demographic of people are mandarin speaking chinese. Its not 'happening'. It happened 5-10 years ago.

File: 1470355862763.gif (31KB, 427x363px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 427x363px

>>56139004
>OK LETS JUST GIVE IT AWAY THEN!

makes perfect sense

arbitrary an capricious rules are the best rules for the internet anyways

>IANA
>controlling power in internet censorship
"no"
As long as ISPs occupy nations, nothing will change. fuck off, /pol/.

>>56139198
>As long as ISPs occupy nations, nothing will change. fuck off, /pol/.

they gonna start their own domain system when UN or china or whoever "multinationals" are decides to shut it down domains on a whim or charge more to those they ideologically oppose?

naive

>>56139223
>naive
you're willfully ignorant for the sake of your argument.
there is no way that a single nation gets a veto power over any domain. they simply govern the rules.
fuck off.

File: 1471333265966.png (256KB, 315x404px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 315x404px

>>56139266
>there is no way that a single nation gets a veto power over any domain. they simply govern the rules.

nobody anywhere has ever abused their power

thinking anybody but US should control it is moronic. guess you wont realize this until after the fact

>>56138953
>shitty right-wing clickbait site
Better source please

>>56139426
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/update-iana-transition
http://www.internetsociety.org/ianaxfer
http://www.ip-watch.org/2016/08/17/us-government-announces-go-ahead-for-iana-transition-by-october/

msm outlets wont touch this with a 50 foot pole

>>56139510
I'm not sure I quite understand it. What exactly is being transferred here? Authority over the DNS root servers?

>>56139560
>in March 2014, NTIA initiated the final step in the privatization of the DNS by asking ICANN to convene Internet stakeholders to develop a plan to transition NTIA’s stewardship role for the DNS to the Internet multistakeholder community.

>>56139560
>Privatization of the root zone oversight and the other tasks performed by the so-called Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)

>>56139659
>>56139677
can you just give me a straight answer? I don't give a shit about politics, meaningless “stewardess” roles or “privatization”. I'm just wondering what's changing on a technological level - are they handing over the DNS root keys or what? And why is this cause for concern among right-wing faggots? I don't get it

>so-called IANA
That's an amusing usage of “so-called”, since the IANA is a well-established body that has been governing stuff like IP address blocks pretty much forever..

>>56139406
what makes US more fit to control IANA than a multinational body?
the internet is used by all nations after all

>>56139708
i didnt write the articles i cant help the wording

>I'm just wondering what's changing on a technological level - are they handing over the DNS root keys or what?
everything yes.

>And why is this cause for concern among right-wing faggots?
the internet will no longer fully be under the jurisdiction of the us constitution, rather some "private multinational" company 's morals whatever they be, groundwork for the end of net neutrality

Was MacArthur right

>>56139168
>JUST GIVE IT AWAY THEN!
you never had it

>>56139406
>thinking anybody but the single most indoctrinated nation on the planet ahould control it is moronic
Toplel.
Friendly reminder that the US leads the world in 1) Military spending per GDP. and 2) Number of adults per capita who believe angels are real. God bless your armies but you people have no claim to anything that doesn't need to be shot, stabbed, blown up, or prayed to.

>>56138953
Well fuck

>>56139426
>>56139560
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313

>INTERNATIONAL CONTROL OVER THE INTERNET OMG
>By which I mean, DNS
wow it's fucking nothing

>>56139004
>>56139266
I suppose you think it is just a coincidence the new Chinese IANA office is in the same building as the government office in charge of the great firewall, and it is also a coincidence that Fadi Chehade the CEO of ICANN is now of the co-chair of the CCP's World Internet Committee; a Chinese government organization whose duties include implementing China's social credit system online.

Just because a republican brought the issue up for a stupid nationalistic reason doesn't mean those concerns aren't valid, his reason for bringing them up are just shit.

File: 1469482723684.gif (2MB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x320px

>>56139934
>I suppose you think it is just a coincidence the new Chinese IANA office is in the same building as the government office in charge of the great firewall, and it is also a coincidence that Fadi Chehade the CEO of ICANN is now of the co-chair of the CCP's World Internet Committee; a Chinese government organization whose duties include implementing China's social credit system online.
nothing to see here folks, just a right wing conspiracy nutjobs, china could never do anything bad, nope never. its a good thing the US no longer has authority over IANA

>>56138953
But this is good, fuck you and your spies.

File: nothingpersonnel.png (125KB, 250x239px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 250x239px

>>56140047
i mean really this could never happen if china was in control of IANA right?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/16/chinas_new_rules_may_break_the_internet_warns_us_government/
>a decision by the Chinese government in March to require all domain names in China to be registered through government-licensed providers based in the country.

China has long had restrictive policies on what people can do online but the new rules, updated for the first time in over a decade, specifically note that any company providing online addresses "shall have the capability to engage in real name verification and users' personal information protection". In other words, every domain name owner will be known personally to the Chinese government.

>>56140076
>i would prefer the regime that does not recognize human rights to control the worlds information
kys

>>56140076
do you think they'd give it up if it reduced their ability to spy on internet traffic?

lol fucking retard

>>56140100
china will never have full control of IANA

>>56140128
No it won't, the big issues are that the CEO of ICANN has damaged the reputation of ICANN by joining China's committee. Plus these new powers in China's hands will be used to abuse the human rights of people in China.

I forgot to drop a source on my claims against Fadi, here we go:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160107_icann_hugs_china_multilateral_internet_governance_initiative/

>>56140100
>implying USA recognizes your rights
Delusion-man.

>>56140117
>assuming any level of government competence

>>56140412
>>implying USA recognizes your rights
>Delusion-man.


>implying they dont

they may infringe on them yes. but the constitution acts as a check of their power and gives grounds for an attempt to challenge them

you're the delusional if you think any other government would bother

>>56140498
They'll straight ignore any rights and promises if it can be justified by TERRORISM.

>>56139851
>because there are a large number of moronic Americans living under a moronic government all Americans are morons and therefore deserve no say over the technology they create

I promise, with your smug superiority, that whatever most likely Western first world nation you occupy has their priorities just as fucked in one way or another. And there are people who you live amongst that would bring you, your people, and your nation shame and embarrassment.

>>56140518
>They'll straight ignore any rights and promises if it can be justified by TERRORISM.
like i said there are infringements, and there is a process to get them removed


youre too shortsighted to see this is most likely a ploy to implement sopa pipa acta cispa tpp style rules voluntarily within a "privatized" compay

>>56140518
What is this retarded reasoning? Get the fuck out of here.

>USA IS KINDA BAD
>THEREFORE ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE EQUALLY AS BAD

There is a difference between "kinda bad" and "authoritatively fucking awful", you maroon. Just because I don't want to eat moldy peaches doesn't mean I'm fine eating human feces. I'd still rather the peaches, thanks. I can eat around the mold.

>>56139855
>"It marks a transition from an internet effectively governed by one nation to a multi-stakeholder governed internet: a properly global solution for what has become a global asset."
this is beyond ridiculous. Why does everybody keep acting like this is such a big deal?

Nothing will change, DNS is already highly decentralized. I don't go to the U.S. government to register a domain, I go to my registar, and they go to whoever's in charge of the TLD in question.

>>56139934
>ust because a republican brought the issue up for a stupid nationalistic reason doesn't mean those concerns aren't valid
What concerns? What exactly do you think is going to happen?

>“Among the many deceitful arguments used by the globalists is that taking the Internet away from the U.S. will advance us toward a goal of ‘no government control of the Internet.’"
>"If the United States doesn’t keep control of what we invented, the Internet will end up under Chinese or U.N. control”
Lol those fat americucks still think they invented the internet...

File: operator as fuck.webm (1MB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x640px

>>56141740
>Lol those fat americucks still think they invented the internet...
whatever lie makes you feel relevant kiddo

>>56141761
>literally nothing wrong with letting "privatized companies" control it

Oh, do go back to /pol/.

IANA and the root zone should be held by an international organisation under treaty, aka a .int, not by ICANN. This has been in progress for years and the IAB and IETF has a strong opinion, with particular reference to the farcical cash grab that was the newTLD auction and tender process, the Verisign .com contract and that incident with the NXDOMAIN spoofing, and the IAB statement on mass surveillance constituting an attack on internet infrastructure.

No one country should have all that power. Particularly not the US, not after all that's happened. It hasn't been an enormous issue in the past except for the above, but we don't want it to be one in the future.

It's a shame that Jon Postel is no longer with us. He'd never have allowed half the bullshit ICANN did.

If you don't even know who he was, you're in no position to comment on this issue.

>>56139934
Yeah, because it would be more efficient to have INTERNET TECHNOLOGY a few miles west of that office, right?

it isn't coincidence, it is a sensible fucking design choice.


Any country that tries to fuck around will get blackholed, just like has happened before.

If you seriously think things like this haven't happened before, you are all delusional.
Pakistan blocked Youtube for most of the internet for several hours and blamed it on a "mistake".
The internet is 100% based on trust between peers. That trust has been broken MANY times. Longer than all you faggots have even been an adult

>>56142144
>Any country that tries to fuck around will get blackholed, just like has happened before.

Where did I say China would jeopardize the internet itself? I clearly said here >>56140174
that my problem is that Fadi is a sack of garbage who has dragged ICANN's name through the mud by taking China up on it's offer to co-chair the WIC, my second problem is that China will abuse human rights DOMESTICALLY, by being able to set insane requirements to register a Chinese domain.

>>56143479
ICANN has dragged their own damn name through the mud by being massive fucking jews with all these new TLDs they created.
All they have done is made more avenues for clickjacking, abusing others names and confusion.

The whole DNS should be scrapped and redone, it is fucking broken as a concept.
Bring on the newsgroups hierarchy. Superior.

>>56138953
tl;dr, anyone? I ain't reading all that shit.

>>56139851
>1) Military spending per GDP
>per GDP

How can a guy be this retarded?

>if you meant to say as a fraction of GDP you'd still be wrong though, plenty of countries spend a higher percentage of their earnings on the military than the US, the US just outspends everyone because it is RICH AS FUCK

>>56138953
It's just a fucking bunch of passwords and IP addresses, what the fuck. It's not like we couldn't bypass all that and just create an UN internet by changing some config files, redeploying some stuff and waiting for the other servers to be replicated. If that doesn't work we can always create our own "internets" like we did with TOR, i2p, freenet and what else.

The congressman are a bunch of computer illiterate old guys. I honestly hope us will lose .mil and .gov, among other TLDs. They should all be .mil.us and .gov.us. ".mil" should be reserved to multi-nation military forces/websites.

>>56142012
>MPAA/RIAA sends in 5000 domains it dosent like
CENSORSHIP

Will this do anything to solve domain squatting?

>/pol/ talking about shit they know nothing about
Sage. And it's not like amerilards aren't the biggest threat to the the world in every aspect.