U.S. to relinquish internet oversight, last-minute lawsuit ditched [HAPPY NEW YE

[Decepticon]

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2016/09/29/picking-cruzs-fight-paxton-sues-obama-administration-domain-name-transfer

WASHINGTON — One Texas Republican lost a battle against the White House over a plan to transfer control from the U.S. over internet domain names. Now, another Texas Republican is taking that fight to court.

Attorney General Ken Paxton — picking up the baton from U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz — joined three other states late Wednesday in suing the Obama administration over the proposal. The states are first seeking a temporary block of the plan before it takes effect Oct. 1.

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Texas, pits the states not just against the White House.

Tech leaders, internet access companies and others have invoked the protection of internet freedom to defend the plan, which would give up oversight of the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers — ICANN — to private global stakeholders.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/30/ags-file-suit-in-last-ditch-bid-to-stop-hand-off-internet-control.html

Republican attorneys general are making a last-ditch bid to block the Obama administration from ceding U.S. oversight of the internet’s domain name system, filing suit in federal court ahead of an imminent deadline for the hand-off.

The AGs from Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada asked a judge late Wednesday to step in and stop the transition to an international oversight body, after GOP lawmakers failed to stall the move as part of a short-term spending bill.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/30/states-sue-to-block-internet-transition/

If you thought the battle over whether or not the "keys" to the internet would be handed over to an international governing body might be over quickly, we've got some bad news. Attorneys general from Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada filed a lawsuit this week in an attempt to block the Obama Administration's plan to cede control of the internet to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in October. The group argues that President Obama must get Congressional approval before "giving away government property."

"The Obama Administration's decision violates the Property Clause of the US Constitution by giving away government property without congressional authorization, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by chilling speech and the Administrative Procedure Act by acting beyond statutory authority," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office explained in a statement.

The Republican attorneys general echoed the sentiments of their fellow party members, arguing that the move would give authoritarian governments like China, Russia and Iran more power to censor the internet. Those three countries will participate in the international governing body that will oversee the internet and domains.

http://www.seeker.com/us-to-cede-control-of-internet-to-icann-2025148578.html

The US government is set to cut the final thread of its oversight of the internet, yielding a largely symbolic but nevertheless significant role over the online address system.

Barring any last-minute glitches, the transition will occur at midnight Friday (0400 GMT Saturday), when the US contract expires for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which manages the internet's so-called "root zone."

When the agreement with the US Commerce Department runs out, ICANN will become a self-regulating non-profit international entity managing the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, the system for online "domains" such as .com.

US and ICANN officials say the change is part of a longstanding plan to "privatize" those functions, but some critics complain about a "giveaway" that could threaten the internet's integrity.

if it at all matters in this case, ICANN is said to not be bound to the first amendment

today's going to be fun

you can check out the countdown clock here (apologies for it being cruz's site, it's the only countdown for this i can find)

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/internetcountdownclock/

[Ad Bot]

[Red Spy]

Three hours forget me

[cooolguy32]

oh forget.

[Decepticon]

oh wait nevermind

looks like it got tossed

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/09/30/judge-denies-block-internet-address-transfer-icann-iana-ip-address-texas/91349184/

A federal judge in the Southern District of Texas on Friday denied a last-ditch request for an injunction against the long-awaited shift of oversight of the Internet’s address book from the U.S. Department of Commerce to a non-profit organization.

The denial means the shift should go forward as expected as 12:00 AM Saturday morning.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, has been in charge of the master list of Internet address since 1998, under a contract with the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

That contract ends September 30 at 11:59 PM. At that point, ICANN becomes an autonomous non-profit, accountable to international stakeholders in the Internet community that include a governmental advisory committee, a technical committee, industry committee, internet users and telecommunications experts.

The shift had been opposed by some conservative officials and lawmakers who have described it as America “giving away the Internet.”

On Thursday the attorneys general of Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas and Nevada filed a lawsuit asking a Federal district court to block the transition, alleging it amounts to giving up U.S. government property, among other complaints.

However on Friday the request for a temporary restraining order was denied.

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/judge-denies-texas-suit-over-internet-changes/328095203

GALVESTON, TEXAS - A last ditch effort by Arizona, Texas, and other states to stop the organization that preserves the operational stability of the internet to become independent was turned away by a Galveston federal judge Friday evening.

The lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief over the move by the federal government was denied by Judge George Hanks, Jr.

[Tayasaurus]

So is this a bad or good thing what am i looking at here

[Renousim]

So is this a bad or good thing what am i looking at here

[Foxscotch]

the US does not have "control of the internet" in the first place. if they did, that would be awful. ICANN, which is what this is actually about, assigns domain names, and could easily be done without, or even completely replaced. I wouldn't say that this is any better than the current state of things, but it's definitely not any worse, either. and we are absolutely not giving up control of the internet, which again we don't have anyway

[Decepticon]

2 hours and 33 minutes left

[Lego lad]

So is this a bad or good thing what am i looking at here

this, im not sure what this means/how it will affect me

[}]Crazy[{]

So is this a bad or good thing what am i looking at here

[Goku®]

So is this a bad or good thing what am i looking at here

[Merp]

So is this a bad or good thing what am i looking at here

[Metalliku]

So is this a bad or good thing what am i looking at here

[Conan]

its good cause the stupid us politicians who tried to capitalize off of nonexistent issues failed.

the sad part is the fact that this even happened. some people are blind to sense and whats best in the longer run in their desperate bid to grab power.

as for the transfer itself, doesnt seem like it would affect anyone here. the news is the stupid us politicians doing stupid things.

[Mann:(]

to those who dont understand what this means is that in 2 hours and 17 minutes as of now, the united states will start to enforce ICANN, an international organization that would allow countries such as russia, iran, and china as examples to block websites and content they see undesirable on U.S. soil

TL;DR - united states becomes a cuck state to backwards stuffholes like russia iran and china in 2 hours or something

the US does not have "control of the internet" in the first place.

it isnt literal "control of the internet". its more of our government protecting our freedom of speech and freedom of access to information to the people