Obama gave away the Internet forever

8 September 2016
Article category: Highlights. Tags: 

Obama just gave away the internet. Forever. It's irreversible.

Free speech on the internet is threated by Obama's giveaway of the internet.

UN Could Take Over ICANN, and the Internet, Oct. 1, Breitbart, August 29, 2016:

The United Nations could take over control of the Internet on October 1, when the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) passes from U.S. administration to the control of a multilateral body, most likely the United Nations International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

While the administration and its defenders have denied that the UN will have authority over ICANN, the Wall Street Journal‘s L. Gordon Crovitz points out that ICANN will need to be run by a state agency in order to retain its antitrust exemption, which makes it almost certainly that the UN will step in to take control.

Crovitz notes:

...  Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

UN control would almost certainly allow tyrannical regimes some degree of control over Americans’ Internet use.

Congress can still act to prevent the transfer: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) have introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, which would prevent the transfer of ICANN without Congressional approval.


Breitbart/Gravis Poll Reveals Americans Strongly Oppose Obama’s Internet Handover, Breitbart, August 30, 2016:

Under the Obama administration’s plan, the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which overseas the World Wide Web, intends to transfer stewardship of domain name system functions, formally known as Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

In an Aug. 16 statement, NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling said ICANN has met all of its objectives to be ready to take over Oct. 1, when the NTIA allows its contract with ICANN to expire.

An international consortium of non-government organizations and foreign governments, ICANN had been running the Internet for the Commerce Department, since 1998...

Rick Manning, the president of Americans for Limited Government, told Breitbart News the handover should be bigger news.

“It is a big deal, because it ends First Amendment protections over the web,” he said

“Right now, the only real protection that exists on the web is not from Facebook, Google, Yahoo or even Breitbart, but it is from the U.S. government contract with ICANN which means that ICANN cannot limit speech by arranging contracts with GoDaddy and others,” he said.

As long as ICANN is working under the cover of the federal government and the protections guarateed in the Constitution, the Internet remains free, he said.

Once the contract expires, there is nothing to stop ICANN from hiring Lois Lerner to take down all the sites that belong to the Tea Party or advocates for gun rights...


The Unfathomable Obama Internet Giveaway, by Fred Elbel, March 21, 2014:

President Obama seems intent on undermining American sovereignty. Now he is giving away the internet.

On March 14, 2014, Obama unilaterally declared that he would relinquish control of the Internet to an unspecified foreign entity, effective September 2015. As if it were his to give away. This action indisputably undermines the democratic principle of an open, free, and uncensored Internet. It directly contravenes U.S. national interest...

It should be noted that the Commerce Department general consul stated in 2000 that it had not allocated resources to determine whether legislation would be a prerequisite to transferring the ICANN contract. Thus the good news is that Congress is in a position to derail Obama's ominous giveaway.

If you are concerned about the future of the Internet, let Congress know your immediate concern over this unconscionable giveaway...


Republicans gear up for fight against internet transition, Politico, September 8, 2016:

...GOP lawmakers have long warned that the administration's plan to relinquish its authority over ICANN, the global nonprofit that manages the internet's domain name system, could give authoritarian countries like China and Russia an opening to make an online power grab...

 House Republicans have been vocal on the issue as well. On the first day Congress came back into session this week, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) delivered a floor speech on the importance of stopping the transfer of authority.

“Think about this. We cannot allow control for Russia or China over U.S. free speech,” she said.


Frank Gaffney on Obama’s Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar: ‘We’ve Got Three Days to Fix This’, Breitbart, September 28, 2016:

Center for Security Policy president and founder Frank Gaffney joined Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Tuesday to offer his thoughts on the first presidential debate and a vitally important topic that was not addressed, the impending surrender of U.S. control of Internet registration...

I can’t figure out what the argument is for doing this,” Gaffney replied. He went on to explain the situation:

    What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. It gets pretty arcane, but the point is, if you think that the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it, or whether you think of it as an engine for free enterprise, let alone if you understand the contribution that it makes these days to national security – including, by the way, the operations of our critical infrastructure – you will understand that the United States retaining a measure of quality control as to what’s going on with how the Internet is populated with names and numbers, domains, websites and the like, is a very important thing.

    And for absolutely no good reason, other than people – or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this and would like to be able to change things around so that they cannot only restrict all the things the Internet does to help their own people become familiar with the terrible they’re being subjected to, at the hands of their totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, but they want to take those freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise – away from us, as well.

    So this is what it comes down to, Alex: there’s no good reason for doing this, certainly not in the next three days, which is what’s going to happen unless Congress intervenes.

    And there’s an interesting point here: Hillary Clinton could make all the difference on whether that happens or not...

Gaffney agreed with Marlow’s criticism of how this vital issue was bypassed at the debate, adding that he was hoping Trump would “jump in on it because he’s taken the right line.”

“He said don’t give this up. Don’t surrender something that is really an instrument of American power – really, when you think of it, sovereignty – especially for no good reason,” Gaffney noted. “He didn’t go there, and Hillary didn’t get asked.”...


John Bolton: Hostile Foreign Governments Will Use Obama’s Internet Surrender to Their Advantage, Breitbart, September 30, 2016:

On Thursday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton criticized Republicans for failing to effectively oppose an Obama policy that has devastating long-term consequences: the surrender of American control over Internet registration.

Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and SiriusXM host Alex Marlow asked Bolton about the impending surrender of Internet control to a multinational body, which Bolton saluted Senator Ted Cruz and some of his colleagues for making an “heroic effort” to block by inserting legislation into the continuing resolution for federal government funding

“It didn’t happen,” Bolton said regretfully about Cruz’s efforts. “I don’t know why. I don’t know whether the Republican leadership in the Senate and the House were not receptive to it. It’s inconceivable to me, inconceivable, that we’re about to let this happen, because it is completely correct that once we let go, we are never going to get it back.”...

Bolton explained:

    It’s only a short period of time before the whole thing is taken over by the U.N., or U.N. specialized agencies, 190 members. The Internet as we have known it is about to disappear, and I think that has national security implications. It certainly has implications for freedom of communication internationally.

    I understand why Barack Obama wants to take it out of the control of the United States and give it to the rest of the world. That’s consistent with the way he’s handled foreign policy for the last eight years – and, by the way, consistent with the way Hillary Clinton will handle it. What stuns me is that there wasn’t more Republican opposition.

    I cannot understand it. You know, here we are in a tight election campaign, where Hillary Clinton is in deep trouble among millennials, there’s no enthusiasm for her, they’re voting for third party candidates. Here’s a chance for the party as a whole to make deep inroads into a group that spends – you know, you give me the figure of the percentage of their time they spend on the Internet that’s about to slip out of American control.

    This has been one government contract that’s been handled exactly right. The Commerce Department serves as an umbrella, it basically leaves ICANN alone, and now we’re going to give it to people in the international system whose objective is not to facilitate communication over the Internet, but to restrict it. And that’s what will happen.


FCC Commissioner on Internet Oversight Switch: ‘If You Cherish Free Expression,’ ‘You Should Be Worried,’ This Is ‘Irreversible’, Breitbart, September 30, 2016.


Obama-UN Internet Takeover Is Just Hours Away, by William F. Jasper, New American, September 29, 2016:

... ALG’s Rick Manning charges that “these issues risk either creating an unaccountable global Internet monopoly or a potentially fractured domain name system if antitrust does come into play. The transition proposal contemplates neither scenario, and these issues cannot be addressed once the transition occurs on October 1.” (See here for a detailed legal analysis by ALG’s senior editor Robert Romano of the anti-trust issues involved in the transfer.)

The letter by chairmen Grassley and Goodlatte asked Attorney General Lynch to answer “whether or not the administration has the constitutional authority to conduct the IANA transition without the authorization of Congress because of the United States property interests in the root zone file — or other similar components of the Internet that were created and financed by the United States.” The chairmen pointed out that 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.”

On September 26, a stellar coalition of 77 generals, admirals, intelligence experts, cybersecurity professionals, and industry leaders sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph Dunford, calling on them to intervene in opposition to President Obama’s radical plan to jeopardize the security of the Internet, which is vital to national (and global) security.

“As individuals with extensive, first-hand experience with protecting our national security, we write to urge you to intervene in opposition to an imminent action that would, in our judgment, cause profound and irreversible damage to the United States’ vital interests,” the letter states. Of immediate concern, say these national security professionals, “is the prospect that the United States might be transferring to future adversaries a capability that could facilitate, particularly in time of conflict, cyberwarfare against us.” The letter continued, “In the absence of NTIA’s stewardship, we would be unable to be certain about the legitimacy of all IP addresses or whether they have been, in some form or fashion, manipulated, or compromised. Given the reliance of the U.S. military and critical infrastructure on the Internet, we must not allow it to be put needlessly at risk.”...


It Took One Killer Question from Ted Cruz to Show Why Americans Should Fear Giving Up Internet Control, Independent Journal Review, September 30, 2016:

...That question, which Cruz had to ask twice:

    "Is ICANN bound by the First Amendment?"

Mr. Marby's blunt response:

    "To my understanding, no."

That is all that many Americans need to know.


Internet giveaway proceeds after court rejects suit to halt it, Paul Mirengoff, PowerLine, October 1, 2016:

... After Congress failed to act, four Republican state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to stop the giveaway. The four state plaintiffs were Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas. Their AGs are Mark Brnovich, Scott Pruitt, Adam Paul Laxalt, and Ken Paxton.

The suit made several arguments against the internet giveaway. Plaintiffs argued that, because it lacks congressional approval (Congress didn’t approve the action, it merely declined to block it) the giveaway amounts to an illegal ceding of U.S. government property. They also contended that the new steward of the internet domain system, an outfit known ICANN, will be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”

The AGs also noted that ICANN could revoke the U.S. government’s exclusive use of .gov and .mil, the domains used by states, federal agencies and the U.S. military for their websites. In a statement, Texas Attorney General Paxton said: “The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.”

... Yesterday, however, a federal district court judge, George C. Hanks, Jr., rejected the legal challenge. The Obama-appointed judge found that there wasn’t enough evidence that the transfer would be harmful.

Thus, today oversight of the domain naming system has been transferred to “global stakeholders.”

... Blocking the giveaway would have upset what has become the world’s reasonable expectation that the U.S., under President Obama, is a pushover willing to cede control over key affairs to international bodies and even our enemies, and unwilling vigilantly to safeguard national interests.

Because congressional leaders are also pushovers, world expectations have been met and remain intact.

Article by Fred Elbel