Home Music Articles Forums Blog Chat More...      

add to bookmarks
Prev Topic | Next Topic

Author
Posts
(Read 1620 times)
chikoppi
Forum Full Member


Registered: 04/02/04
Posts: 1910
Location: N/A
 
Re:Internet Giveaway Now!
Sunday, September 18 2016 @ 12:42 PM CDT

ICANN
ICANN is a non-profit that essentially publishes the "phone book" (DNS registry) for the Internet. It doesn't "control" the Internet and it can't stop anyone from connecting to any network with an IP address.

Until now, the only agency providing oversight to the activities of ICANN was the US government. Does that sound like a good idea?

Under the new governance there will be a panel of 171 nations that will contribute to an advisory committee. This arrangement will increase public transparency and accountability. The committee does not have the authority to do anything other than ask questions and provide recommendations. They don't even get a vote on the board.

And according to an advisory committee web page, the panel’s advice must be taken into account by ICANN’s board, which includes a single non-voting Governmental Advisory Committee liaison, "and where the board proposes actions inconsistent with GAC advice it must give reasons for doing so and attempt to reach a mutually acceptable solution."

So, we asked, might the advisory panel add up to a kind of United Nations?

David Conrad, ICANN’s chief technology officer, told us the advisory panel isn’t a mini-UN in part because it’s not a ruling body and any recommendation it makes must be unanimous--meaning any country can stop movement--though the committee can offer information or make suggestions to the board without a consensus.

More broadly, Conrad and other ICANN officials stressed, it doesn’t make sense to suggest a country controls the internet which, Conrad said, "is comprised of a set of privately operated networks which agree to exchange traffic using a common set of protocols. There is no central point of control of the internet at all. So, the idea that the U.S. is somehow giving up control through a contract that its entire purpose is to allow the administration of a set of identifiers is just sort of ludicrous."


EFF
Read any of the hundreds of legal cases in which the EFF has represented the rights of individuals against corporate and government intrusion. They have been instrumental in establishing actual case law, which is what sets bona fide legal precedent that protects those rights from future incursion.

https://www.eff.org/cases

If the hidden agenda of the EFF was to "co-opt dissent and shelter the elite" they would be doing the worst possible job at it imaginable. In fact, the very substantive contributions they have made could not be more antithetical to that end.

Cruz
Cruz is an opportunistic and deceitful scumbag universally loathed by his peers on both sides of the aisle. His entire schtick is to feign outrage against pantomimed issues while betting that some significant number of his constituents will never know the difference. He is peddling aggrievement to those too uniformed or uncaring to question what he is feeding them.

As someone who supposedly champions 'free thought' and mistrust of politicians, I would think you would be more skeptical of such a huckster. In this instance, he has duped you into opposing increased transparency and defending government control of what should be a independent public resource.

“Ya, that idea is dildos.” Skwisgaar Skwigelf
GET SONG FEEDBACK --> MacJams Critics Circles
J.A.Stewart
Forum Full Member


Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 4540
Location: Somewhere In Time, USA
 
Re:Internet Giveaway Now!
Sunday, September 18 2016 @ 08:46 PM CDT


MY LATEST: A demo version of my Work-In-Progress DAILY GRIND
magnatone
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 4364
Location: N/A
 
Re:Internet Giveaway Now!
Monday, September 19 2016 @ 11:00 AM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi

As someone who supposedly champions 'free thought' and mistrust of politicians, I would think you would be more skeptical of such a huckster. In this instance, he has duped you into opposing increased transparency and defending government control of what should be a independent public resource.



unfortunately, conspiracy theorists too often show intellectual laziness when it comes to that type of consistency. "If actual facts don't support my conspiracy theory, I don't want to know anything about them!" You've done a great job of presenting the actual facts Chik - but I doubt James will respond ... since the facts don't fit his narrative

my most recent song: "First Light (solo piano)"
ted23
Forum Full Member


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 608
Location: , United Kingdom
 
Re:Internet Giveaway Now!
Tuesday, September 20 2016 @ 03:15 PM CDT

Quote by: magnatone
Quote by: chikoppi

As someone who supposedly champions 'free thought' and mistrust of politicians, I would think you would be more skeptical of such a huckster. In this instance, he has duped you into opposing increased transparency and defending government control of what should be a independent public resource.



unfortunately, conspiracy theorists too often show intellectual laziness when it comes to that type of consistency. "If actual facts don't support my conspiracy theory, I don't want to know anything about them!" You've done a great job of presenting the actual facts Chik - but I doubt James will respond ... since the facts don't fit his narrative



Probably just didn't have time to do any "homework" 😏
 
MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 638
Location: Nashville, TN United States
 
Re:Internet Giveaway Now!
Wednesday, September 21 2016 @ 07:52 AM CDT

I guess that I’m just waiting for the Internet to out-grow its “telephone book” days.

We don’t need to refer to “macjams.com” as the only way to find the IP-address 68.69.233.148.   We shouldn’t have to go to a particular “place” or “site” to find (or, to look for ...) “content.”   What we want is the content, itself.   What we need is a de-centralized, non-redundant, way to identify it and to reach it ... such that the content is always fresh.

This is the essential concept of The Semantic Web:   the network is composed, not of places where content may be found (but only with the help of an external index, e.g. Google), but of the content itself.   There ceases to be “a central authority,” e.g. ICANN, because there ceases to be a technical need for one.

This is much more in keeping with the philosophy of Gopher, a very different search technique that, for the moment at least, was superseded by HTTP and the likes of Google.

The problem with “search engines” is simply that they are external to the information sources that they index.   If they “de-list” you, you disappear.   If you update the content on your site, no one knows about them until, and unless, the search engine re-visits you.   The information on the search-engine is not only a totally redundant duplication of the content, but it is also more-or-less always stale.   There are billions of computer systems on this network now.   Why do most of them play an utterly-passive role in serving information to you?   Why do they use their own private taxonomy?   Why do we continue to talk about “SEO?”

(Obviously, “SEO” concerns really stem from the recognition that search-engines really do not do a good job of indexing content.   These technical limitations cannot be solved by tweaking:   we need a completely new and more-mature architecture for the web itself.   We need to look at the goal in a fundamentally different way.)

As the size of the Internet continues to grow (it is now in everybody’s pocket, potentially not only as a sink of data but also as a source), the search-engine model becomes less effective and the domain-naming concept becomes less relevant.   The Internet connects every participant to every other participant directly.   Why do we still need central-authorities and external indexes to do anything useful with it?   We should not still be mired in this limited way of thinking.