Senator Ted Cruz released a video titled, “We must keep the Internet Free”
Cruz addresses the U.S. giving up control of the Internet. From the transcript:
0:38
Obama wants to give that power away to an international body called I can which
0:43
would empower countries like Russia and China and around this internet giveaway
0:49
pose a great threat to our country’s freedom and our national security
0:53
Russia and China and Iran don’t have a First Amendment they don’t protect free
0:57
speech and they actively censor the Internet
brian says
June 26, 2016 at 3:32 pmthis is 100% consistent with the Obama administration and his supporters – to roll over and let the next moronic Orwell “animal farm” take over the world – where – of course – Obama is the pope
Eric Granberg says
June 27, 2016 at 12:01 pmNo. The only thing this is consistent with are the lies that constantly emanate from the right wing.
Domain says
June 27, 2016 at 12:22 pmYeah because the left is honest. #crookedhillary
Zee Wilson says
June 26, 2016 at 8:20 pmI think that the International body you’re referring to is ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers).
John says
June 27, 2016 at 12:10 pmI think he knows that and only made a common kind of typo.
John B says
June 27, 2016 at 8:43 amFunny how these clowns do their power-grabs in the name of freedom, except when they take them directly from the People, then it is in the name of safety. When they play either one of these cards, watch out, someone is going to lose something they wanted to keep.
Terry says
June 27, 2016 at 10:23 amWell if this information is coming from Ted Cruz, I better do more research to verify the actually story here…
John says
June 27, 2016 at 12:26 pmAs compared to if it came from…?
Danny Pryor says
June 27, 2016 at 10:42 amLet me be blunt: Ted Cruz’s entire mission in life is to keep the match burning that he will use to burn down whatever house he wishes. This is the jackal who seized the Senate with Dr. Seuss stories so he could throw a personal temper tantrum. He is despised by his peers.
Using anything he says lends the name Ted Cruz far more credibility than it deserves, and it diminishes the argument any domain investor or domain developer may purvey in the cause of maintaining a free Internet. Not all political bedfellows can be strange; some are simply toxic, to be avoided.
Nothing in this video is anything more than the same scare tactics used by this dung-slinging wretch, who likely knows about as much about domains as Harvey Fierstein knows about masculinity. The distortions about a president “giving away” the Internet to its own supervisory body are a premier example of the fear-mongering and divisive nature of this man and his arguments.
As for the purpose of this post on The Domains, you’ll be hard-pressed to explain to me, in the first place, why this video is news for the domain industry.
Domain says
June 27, 2016 at 12:20 pmI would say Because many of us do not think that the US should hand over anything as related to the domain name system. It is obvious you are a typical liberal Michael is there anyway you could give us a way to block out comments based on political affiliation ? having to read the rantings from the radical left makes me want to throw up.
#crookedhillary
John says
June 27, 2016 at 12:24 pmAs with other Cruz bashers, you are simply living out the definition of “ad hominem.” It is unfortunate that he is the only one with the guts to spearhead this issue because of that. I’ll be the first to say he is wrong about Net neutrality, and hence his remark about “free of regulation” at the end of this otherwise great video is a flawed insertion of ideology the Right is wrong about, but despite any personal flaws of his you would do well to remember the saying about how even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The Left is just as dead wrong about this “transition” as the Right was wrong about Net neutrality. This time it happens to be Cruz who is right about something, something just as important or more so.
John says
June 27, 2016 at 12:45 pmThis should be “required reading” on the issue now:
“OBAMA’S INTERNET ENDANGERMENT”
breitbart . com/big-government/2016/06/07/obamas-internet-endangerment/
Nick says
June 28, 2016 at 9:46 amThis is the only good thing Cruz has ever done. Anybody that thinks that it is a good idea to have a RICH COMPANY like icann, that does not have to answer to any country at all, and is allowed to do whatever the hell they want, is insane.
John Berryhill says
June 29, 2016 at 11:05 amAs a California corporation, ICANN remains subject to jurisdiction to suit in the US just like any other US company. It has been demonstrated time and time again that the Independent Review process, available prior to suit, is not a captive of ICANN, since ICANN has lost Independent Review arbitrations several times, such as in the .xxx process or the protracted .africa process.
The proposed structure DECREASES government influence in the ICANN policy process. The reason why ICANN was formed in the first place was to get the government out of the business of establishing DNS policy.
No country, Russia and China included, is able to control the ICANN policy structure, and that is the point of the transition. Until now the Government Advisory Committee has had what amounts to a veto over ICANN policy decisions. That is eliminated in the new structure, and governments, as a whole, are treated as just another constituency group in the proposed transition structure.
While I realize there are a fair number of people who think that government is the best management solution to a wide range of things, it is interesting to see so-called “conservatives” clamoring for the US government to retain a hypothetical power which it has not once exercised to reverse an ICANN community policy process in 17 years.
John says
June 29, 2016 at 8:15 pmSee what I just posted here:
domainnamewire . com/2016/06/29/strickling-responds-rubio-et-al-iana-transition/#comment-2239554
“Did we say we wanted this transition, and that we’d ‘balkanize’ the Internet if you don’t give in? Did we say that? What we meant was, we oppose this transition. No…Please…don’t…stop…”