Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the out-of-control dept.

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.

9 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Entrope · · Score: 5, Informative

      Her campaign 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".

    3. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 5, Funny

      if China or Russia had been in charge?

      Absolutely I do. China and/or Russia would have no problem with people criticizing the U.S. government or its leaders on the internet.

    4. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by dnaumov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?

      what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in

      but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?

      what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in

      Considering that the US started the whole fucking mess and that Germany and Turkey had to take in MILLIONS upon millions of refugees despite being significantly smaller in size and despite not being the ones to initiate the conflict, yes, taking in 6,000,000 refugees (you seem to have misplaced the comma) would be a decent START.

    5. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Z80a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about just fixing where they live?
      It's a lot cheaper and don't have the whole awful cultural clash.

    6. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?

      what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in

      60,000? Were you planning to set up a recruiting booth inside a Daesh training camp? Daesh might not even have 60,000 fighters world-wide.

      Let in 600,000 refugees and you might get a handful who turn jihadi.

      You'll get another handful who commit murder, some others who steal cars, start businesses, become political pundits, stand up comics, teachers, professors, drug addicts, you'll even get a few Trump supporters!

      It's 600,000 people, you're likely to get a bit of everything, good and bad.

      And frankly lets be honest, you don't actually give a crap about terrorism.

      Anyone who gives it a moments thought realizes the US already has a lot of Muslims, and the easiest way to get a bunch of Muslim terrorists in the US is to elect Trump and essentially declare Muslims to be the enemy.

      So no, I don't think you're that stupid, I don't think you would have the same reaction if these were western European white Christians.

      Rather it's about race and culture, the US with an additional 600K Arab Muslims is a smidgen less like the US as you envision it.

      And if that's your true motivation then it's the argument we should be having.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by schnell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How about just fixing where they live?

      Because the law of unintended consequences is nowhere stronger, more visible or more impactful than it is in foreign relations.

      I think the Obama administration's foreign policy in the Middle East has been feckless at best. But it's earnestly debatable whether that is worse than nothing at all.

      Think about it - the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an attempt to "fix where they live." For some people, it made their lives better. For most others, it made it far worse. I think arguments that "how" it was done made the difference are largely specious - to quote the apocryphal Colin Powell "Pottery Barn Rule," we (the US) broke it and we bought it. We took on all the problems of a region divided by sectarian religious and ethnic divisions more than a millennium old that make the US Republican/Democrat divide look like an intramural volleyball game. There was just not going to be a happy ending there.

      So we go and get involved in Libya. Did that help or hurt? Probably hurt. So we don't really get involved in Syria. Did that help or hurt? Probably hurt.

      That's the thing, there is no unambiguously good or right answer to getting involved in areas where the fundamental tension is too big, too old and/or too "foreign" for you to solve. Was the Republican approach in 2003 bad? Yes. Was the Democratic approach in 2011 bad? Yes. There is no clear right approach and the end result is more dependent on luck and externalities than anything else.

      And by the way, this is no endorsement of Trump - rather the opposite. I think the above is proof that anyone who thinks there are simple answers to questions that thousands of smart and informed people have struggled for decades to solve is an idiot. Easy answers sound good, but in situations like these there is simply no such thing as any easy answer. Anything you do will almost invariably have unintended consequences. Getting involved has them, as does not getting involved. Dealing with toxic areas of the world has only "least bad options" at best. "And when you sup with the devil, you should bring a long spoon."

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    8. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Gussington · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He doesn't appear to understand the meaning of the word free trade because support for free trade were words out of his mouth after talking about implementing tariffs, though.

      He has no idea what he is doing. And just because you are upset with your plumber, you don't get your Real Estate agent to do the job because he has a nice smile.
      Hillary may not be ideal, but at least she's a plumber.