Saturday, September 03, 2016


The UK Register's reported that the US government may extend the ICANN contract again:
The US government has admitted its plan to move control of the internet's naming and numbering functions to a California non-profit next month may not move forward.

In a letter [PDF] from the Department of Commerce (DoC) to ICANN sent August 31, the department's CFO gives the organization 30 days' notice that it may extend its current contract over the critical IANA functions by a year. In other words, Uncle Sam will continue to oversee ICANN's running of IANA for another 12 months.
I certainly hope responsibility's being taken now, because some of the reports indicated that ICANN's still not fully ready to run business without proper oversight.

In any case, I think there should be competition on internet operating, and other companies should take up the challenge of building businesses for offering operations similar to ICANN's. There can be an advantage in it.

Friday, September 02, 2016


More info's coming out that reveals just how bad Obama's dealings with Iran were:
The United States and its negotiating partners agreed “in secret” to allow Iran to evade some restrictions in last year’s landmark nuclear agreement in order to meet the deadline for it to start getting relief from economic sanctions, according to a report reviewed by Reuters.

The report is to be published on Thursday by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said the think tank’s president David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and co-author of the report. It is based on information provided by several officials of governments involved in the negotiations, who Albright declined to identify.

Reuters could not independently verify the report’s assertions.

“The exemptions or loopholes are happening in secret, and it appears that they favor Iran,” Albright said.

Among the exemptions were two that allowed Iran to exceed the deal’s limits on how much low-enriched uranium (LEU) it can keep in its nuclear facilities, the report said. LEU can be purified into highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium.

The exemptions, the report said, were approved by the joint commission the deal created to oversee implementation of the accord. The commission is comprised of the United States and its negotiating partners — called the P5+1 — and Iran.
Absolutely disgusting, and it only endangers practically the whole world even more.

Wednesday, August 31, 2016


A special poll on Breitbart reveals that a lot of Americans are against handing over the web to an awful body like the UN, although there's still more who may not be fully aware of what could happen:
There is overwhelming opposition to President Barack Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international advisory body, 41 percent against with 14 percent supporting, according to the Breitbart/Gravis poll of 1,493 likely voters released Friday.

“In addition to the high oppostion, the 44 percent who are unsure really means that many, many Americans are not following the story,” said Doug Kaplan, the managing partner of Gravis Marketing, the Florida-based firm that executed the poll. The poll carries a margin of error of 2.5 percent.
Clearly, there's need to let a lot more people know about the ramifications of this awful move.
Kaplan said as a follow up, respondents, who were opposed to the handover were asked: “Is this an example of America’s weakening leadership in the world?”

Seventy-five percent of the likely voters who said they opposed the U.S. handing over control of the Internet said it was an example of “America’s weakening leadership in the world,” he said.

[...] 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.
Not just Lerner. Even Islamic dictatorships could damage sites opposing their ideology. This is why I think, at the same time, that some countries with rationale should start setting up companies similar to ICANN and provide name/number service themselves. That could help add competition for the market. For now, it's simply unacceptable if the UN gets any access the internet, and that's why every sane person should oppose the move.

Monday, August 29, 2016


Joel Pollak once again warns that Obama could transfer ICANN into the hands of the UN, which is bound to destroy internet freedom unless an alternative can be found:
It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government. [...]

Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. 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.”
The worst part is that, much like with the Iran deal, Obama could push this through no matter what protests are issued. There are already Senators introducing a bill to protect the internet. But everyone who believes in freedom will have to be wary of what could happen in another month.


A rabbi in France has ideally defended banning burkinis from French beaches:
A senior Paris rabbi defended a string of controversial municipal bans in France on wearing the full-body swimsuit known as a burkini in public.

Moshe Sebbag of the Grand Synagogue told JTA on Tuesday that he supported in principle the regulations adopted earlier this month in 15 French municipalities, including the famed beach resort Cannes. Last week, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said the garb, worn by Muslim women in accord with their religious views of modesty, was part of a “political project” to perpetuate female servitude.

“It’s a complicated subject and both sides have compelling arguments,” Sebbag said in an interview.

While the French state is a “secular country with freedom of religion,” he said, the mayors in question “understood this is not about women’s liberty to dress modestly, but a statement as to who will rule here tomorrow.” The rabbi added that this owed to recent jihadist terror attacks in France.

“They understand today there’s a religious war, a takeover of the secular establishment of the French republic, and this is what they find unacceptable,”
Sebbag said. Asked if he agrees with the burkini bans, he said: “Yes, because you see that going with it [a burkini] is not innocent, it’s sending a message.”
Yes, the way those Muslims involved are going about it, it's clear they're doing everything they can to disgust the public and symbolize contempt. And, as I may have noted before, burkinis can be used to smuggle small weapons like dynamite sticks and grenades, and could even be used for drug smuggling. There's also hygiene to worry about. So all municipalities who consider the burkini a bad idea should stand firm on their decision to keep it off the beaches.