President Obama’s plan to turn over control of the Internet to an international organization that could curb freedom of speech is facing a new obstacle with the introduction on Wednesday of a bill.
The Protecting Internet Freedom Act, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., “would ensure the continued protection of Internet freedom by prohibiting the National Telecommunications and Information Administration from allowing the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions contract to expire, unless specifically authorized by Congress.”
Cruz said a statement announcing the bill that the Obama administration “is months away from deciding whether the United States government will continue to provide oversight over core functions of the Internet and protect it from authoritarian regimes that view the Internet as a way to increase their influence and suppress freedom of speech.”
“This issue threatens not only our personal liberties, but also our national security. We must act affirmatively to protect the Internet and the amazing engine for economic growth and opportunity the Internet has become, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.”
Duffy said Obama “wants to hand over the keys to the Internet to countries like China and Russia.”
“This is reckless and absurd,” he said. “The governments of these countries do not value free speech. In fact, they censor the Internet and routinely repress and punish political dissidents. They cannot be trusted with something as fundamental to free speech as a free and open Internet. I will continue to fight President Obama’s irresponsible plan to surrender U.S. sovereignty of the Internet to the world’s worst actors and to protect our constitutional right to free speech.”
The six-page bill cites the success of the multi-stakeholder, bottom-up practices that exist now, which involves representatives of users, governments, domain operators, managers and others.
The bill would provide that the U.S. maintain sole ownership and control of the .gov and .mil domains, “which are vital to national security.”
The sponsors cite the strong support from a wide range of experts in the field.
Berin Szoka, president of the non-partisan think tank TechFreedom, said the Internet is “far too important to rush this transition.”
“Unfortunately, the administration has viewed this transition as a cheap way to recover the global political credibility it lost because of the Snowden revelations and its own stubborn resistance to real surveillance reforms,” he said. “They simply haven’t been willing to negotiate to protect ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model.”
Szoka said Congress “has already told NTIA to cease further work, and been ignored.”
“It’s time to mandate congressional approval of the transition. This would not only ensure more meaningful transparency and accountability mechanisms, it could also address two potentially catastrophic legal issues: First, if a U.S. court finds that the IANA function constituted government property, it could unwind the deal. Second, without a contractual link to the U.S. government, ICANN may be vulnerable to antitrust suits. If that happened, it would push the organization right into the hands of the ITU to regain antitrust immunity – and the Internet would fall under the sway of foreign governments.”
Joining the argument was Timothy H. Lee of the Center for Individual Freedom.
“The Obama administration assures us that the surrender wouldn’t empower tyrannical foreign governments like Iran, North Korea or Cuba, but that’s precisely the result its scheme would have,” he said.
“Among other things, foreign governments would obtain power to determine ICANN’s composition, and individual citizens and groups would possess no legal standing to protest. Remember, this is the same Obama administration that promised, ‘If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’”
And Fred Campbell of Tech Knowledge wrote, “The U.S. must carefully consider its role overseeing the Internet’s foundation before turning it over to an unaccountable organization.”
Other groups supporting the move include Center for Freedom and Prosperity, American Commitment, Frontiers of Freedom and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.
Conservatives long have feared Obama would turn over control to the likes of North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, and they have opposed his efforts.
Opponents include Heritage Action, Americans for Tax Reform, National Religious Broadcasters, American Center for Law and Justice and Center for Security Policy.
Heritage Action, in a statement, said U.S. oversight “has maintained an open and free Internet and there is no reason to doubt that that would continue if the current contract is extended to ensure that the new, substantially different ICANN will work as envisioned.”
“Cruz’s legislation would provide an important congressional check on the system to ensure that any transition is in the best interest of the U.S. and Internet freedom more broadly.”
Jerry A. Johnson of the National Religious Broadcasters said: “Regimes around the world are dangerously intent on squashing Internet freedom. We must be very careful not to allow them to extend their influence over the very core of the Internet. The Protecting Internet Freedom Act will ensure that the representatives of the American people in Congress are convinced of the airtight merits of any proposed transition plan before it advances. There is only one shot to get such a move right.”
WND reported earlier this year that Obama had arranged for oversight of the Internet to be transferred to a nonprofit international group.
Two years ago, WND reported that well over 100,000 people signed a petition opposing Obama’s plan.
At the time, members of Congress confirmed that some of the possible members of the multinational body – including Russia, Turkey, China and Malaysia – either have censored the Internet in their own nations or vowed to do so.
The American Center for Law and Justice, which organized the petition effort, said at the time the Obama administration was pushing into dangerous territory.
“This move would put the online liberty of Americans at great risk,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. “By turning over this key oversight to an international community – which is likely to include countries hostile to America – the world’s most powerful instrument of free speech would be subject to censorship, could be taxed, and would make it easier for cyber-fraud schemes to expand in countries around the globe.”
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/cruz-fights-obama-plan-to-give-away-internet/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/cruz-fights-obama-plan-to-give-away-internet/
No comments:
Post a Comment