The Left defends the surrender of the internet to "the world." Their defense leaves off a very important point.

136 views in 24

The Surrender of the Internet and a primary Conservative concern

Editorial notes:  Katherine Mahar,  crusader for the advocacy of digital rights (whatever that means),  believes the recent Conservative reports of surrendering control of the internet to “the world” is not the full story.  In fact, the very opposite is true,  she thinks;  just another Right Wing conspiracy with the truth being something expressly "other" than what the "Right Wing fear-mongers" would have us believe  In the article,  below,  she points to these off-setting considerations:  

“In its announcement, the division of Commerce responsible for managing this contract, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), laid out a set of  prerequisites that any successful transition will have to meet. They include ensuring broad community support for the proposal, creating avenues for input from diverse stakeholders, enhancing technical resilience and security, maintaining the openness of the Internet — and consistency with the intent of Congress.”  

Sounds good,  but few of us have the expertise to know who is more accurate in their assessments. I do know this,  Ms. Mahar (are we still using that term,  “Ms”?) does not address the most obvious concern.  Understand that the world has a set-in-stone agenda,  at least that part of the world with which K Mahar is most familiar.  It is a world without borders,  a world that needs money,  a world that does not need exposure and conservative,  regional,  personal-freedom driven opinion.  No conspiracy here.  Just the facts.  Obama and Schumer and Luis Gutierrez or the very thoughtless,  Nancy Pelosi are all of this same mind.  And the “most obvious concern?”  That this world,  the new world of internet control,  whether by permission or not,  simply has to say “no” to a request for a new IP address,  and the individual or organization making that request,  is effectively cut off from the rest of the world.  K Mahar does not address this issue and she leaves this out of her explanation “on purpose,” I believe. There is a hard, fast rule,  regarding the power of government and it is this:  The further removed is its seat of power,  from the expressed will of the people,  the more control it has over those same people.  Giving an entity of world governance power to make decisions insures the loss of free expression and individuality.  That is the concern,  K Mahar ignores.  

_______________________

For reference,  here is an excerpt containing K. Mahar's point of view and the context of my quote, above:  

Mahar in The Polictico: Historically, the United States has been responsible for coordinating the Internet’s names and numbering system: the tools that do things like match human-readable domains, like “Politico.com,” with the number-based IP address that computers use to bring order to the different devices and destinations on the Internet.

But the Department of Commerce doesn’t actually handle this responsibility directly. The United States has subcontracted this function out for years: first from the Defense Department to the University of Southern California, and since 1998 from the Department of Commerce to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, better known as ICANN.

ICANN, which was created primarily for the purpose of contracting to Commerce, is already a global body. Its headquarters are in California, but it has offices around the world and a governance model that includes representatives from 111 countries, international organizations and commercial and non-commercial stakeholders (such as academics and entrepreneurs). The announcement won’t fundamentally shift this oversight — in fact, Commerce has asked ICANN to lead the process of developing a proposal for the transition.

More importantly, however, is there is no way Commerce will allow for a transition that doesn’t serve the public’s interest in a free and open Internet.

The department controls the conditions, the timing and the ultimate approval of any new arrangement.

In its announcement, the division of Commerce responsible for managing this contract, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), laid out a set of  prerequisites that any successful transition will have to meet. They include ensuring broad community support for the proposal, creating avenues for input from diverse stakeholders, enhancing technical resilience and security, maintaining the openness of the Internet — and consistency with the intent of Congress.

Any plan that doesn’t meet these guidelines won’t make the cut.

Katherine Maher is advocacy director for the digital rights group Access (accessnow.org) and a fellow with the Truman National Security Project.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/control-of-the-internet-104830.html#ixzz2wW6DWJmx