An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.

Tue Aug 30 13:31:14 MST 2016

I don't agree that names are not important.  They aren't relative to
computers but our human society and economics literally runs on name
recognition in one way or another.  Working for the largest registrant in
the world  I can tell you that name recognition is everything in the
internet.  I recently heard 2 domain name experts estimate that the name
LA.COM is worth between 10 and 15 million dollars.  The top 10% of the
corporate world have spent 100's of billions over the past 25 years to
secure their trademarked names in the domain space.  Those companies alone
have more money and more control in most of the economic world than many of
the countries that would want to sensor. And many of them operate inside of
these countries.  Piss off Walmart too much in China and China can loses
hundreds of millions in tax revenue.

Also ICANN is only one element of the internet. You cannot discount
infrastructure owners those like AT&T and Comcast that actually own most of
the fiber, and Verizon, AT&T and Sprint etc that have the rights to most of
the radio frequency bandwidth.  These players are not going to just lay
down and accept less money because someone else can mucker with naming
authority.

What about registrants and DNS resolution companies such as Go Daddy and
VeriSign and the rest. They aren't going to lay down and let someone pull
more money out of there purse strings trying to regulate and make them
irrelevant.

For the reasons above I believe that whoever ends up with control of ICANN
will have several very large gorillas to deal with.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Eric Oyen <eric.oyen at icloud.com> wrote:

> well, so long as you have IP addresses, names are not that important. That
> is the key right there. since ICANN deals mostly with assigned names, it
> should be easy to work around.
>
> now, this may be a tauter simplistic view of the problem and solution, but
> then, it's the simplest solutions that often work best.
>
> Mind you, I am not an expert on the net generally or its infrastructure in
> particular (no one is). My specialty involves security and that is where I
> am good at things. everything else would require additional study for me
> (and at my age, there just wouldn't be enough time to learn it all and
> still keep up with all the changing tech).
>
> So, your question, as stated, seems like a paradox. In some ways, it is,
> but in others, there is simply no issue.
>
> -eric
>
> On Aug 29, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Keith Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > How can we circumvent the current system and use the current
> infrastructure?
> >
> >
> > On 2016-08-29 10:00, Eric Oyen wrote:
> >> ok, I see some issues here.
> >> first off, I am a conservative. I don't hide it but, then, I don't
> >> trumpet it either. As far as I am concerned, politics should have very
> >> little to do with technology or how it gets implemented.
> >> Unfortunately, politics has injected itself into our very lives in the
> >> form of regulations, some of which govern how we can use the net. To
> >> my mind, that is a very bad thing. if you really want to see examples
> >> of how bad it can get, take a look at china, russia, the entire middle
> >> east, and some places in South America.
> >> now that I have dispensed with the politics, I want to get down to how
> >> we work around onerous control of the net. Someone else suggested a
> >> mesh network. That's all fine and good until you want to communicate
> >> outside of the local area. So, how do we expand this idea? This is
> >> where innovation in technology comes into play. It's purely technical
> >> and solves a problem (and no politics involved).
> >> so, there it is, how do we work around this problem and not get
> >> political doing it?
> >> -eric
> >> On Aug 29, 2016, at 9:46 AM, Nathan England wrote:
> >>> Amazing how clear every thing becomes when you take a deep breath!...
> and
> >>> burry your head in the sand.
> >>> On Monday, August 29, 2016 1:43:22 AM MST stevensspam at cox.net wrote:
> >>>> My suggestion?
> >>>> Taking a deep breath, pouring the Koolaid down the drain instead of
> drinking
> >>>> it, and repeating to yourself, "I should really stop jumping on every
> >>>> conspiracy bandwagon I see."
> >>>> Seriously, I have little doubt that if we had a republican president
> and a
> >>>> democratic majority in congress was attempting to block this very same
> >>>> change you would see articles criticizing the block and talking about
> how
> >>>> government can't do anything right. What's going on now is that
> instead of
> >>>> a single company holding a government granted monopoly to run the DNS
> and
> >>>> numbering system there would be a group of companies and organizations
> >>>> doing the same thing -- with a US threat to seize control of it again
> if
> >>>> they misbehave.
> >>>> And as for fears this will lead to balkanization brought up in
> another post
> >>>> -- there have been threats to balkanize the Internet if control of
> the DNS
> >>>> system remained a monopoly held by a single US company or government
> >>>> agency. This is probably a damned it you do, damned if you don't
> decision.
> >>>> In the long run it's probably inevitable that no matter which way this
> >>>> decision goes there will be more fracturing. We're probably very
> lucky to
> >>>> have gone this far with as little fracturing as there has been. I can
> even
> >>>> see Moral Majority types on the right demanding tighter controls over
> the
> >>>> Internet in the US to crack down on "adult" content which would
> pretty much
> >>>> require making a US Internet with closely watched gateways to the
> outside
> >>>> (censorship and political correctness are not something unique or
> >>>> restricted to the right or left, there's just different names
> attached).
> >>>> Having thing not being run by one single company operating under a
> >>>> government granted monopoly might make it just a slight bit harder
> for that
> >>>> to happen.
> >>>> But really, I suppose we should panic. It's not as if the conspiracy
> >>>> theorists have ever been wrong. After all Texas has been under
> Martial Law
> >>>> ever since Jade Helm, every Hurricane for decades has resulted in
> thousands
> >>>> disappearing into FEMA death camps, there's all folks who lost homes
> to
> >>>> imminent domain to built the Mexi-Canadian superhighway that's exempt
> from
> >>>> US jurisdiction, and after a decade I still haven't gotten used to
> these
> >>>> new Ameros that replaced the dollar...
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------
> >>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
> >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> >>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> >> ---------------------------------------------------
> >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
> >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> >
> > --
> > Keith Smith
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>

-- 
James

*Linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-h-dugger/15/64b/74a/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20160830/12aa3397/attachment.html>