I would for Sanders, whom I imagined a chance for a change. But say Trump is elected - I think is possible, as Democrats pretty much would have him, as opposed to Sanders.

All that said: Trump the US president is simply the waste of influence and opportunity. For the US.

While congress is going over to stop the transfer to the UN, Internet freedom and control will be censored by Iran and China if it's handed over. Not only that, government and military (.gov and .mil) can and probably will become a huge security risk.

We should keep an eye on this.

Wrong about everything, as usual for you in this thread.

No content in the video. Iran and China are two countries in the world, and all countries are eligible to be part of ICANN. Two countries do not get power to make such sweeping changes as the pretty girl claims. Since I know more about networking than you ever will, let me break it down for you.

First, she makes vague, content-free claims about top level domains (TLDs, the last bit of an address like .com, .org, mil, and such). The internet has no idea what, for example, whithouse.gov is. DNS changes that name into an address, which is then routed across the global internet. Even if - and this can't happen, but considering the worst case scenario as these internet-illiterate talking heads like to do - previously American .mil TLDs were given out to other countries to use, the names are still irrelevant. Addresses are what matters, and regardless of who gets to pick address names, classified data is held on SIPRNET or other closed networks, which are not vulnerable to name-resolution threats.

They keep saying "internet control" because they (presumably) know that there's nothing actually alarming to talk about. If the name reservation system is in fact held, as these people love to say, "in the same building as the agency responsible for censoring the country's (China's) internet", it still makes no difference to how we in the USA view the internet, because the root DNS is not held in one place, but thirteen (logical, over 500 physical), and is what actually allows name resolution. Since DNS is - and has been for decades - open and controlled by many countries, it's very easy to look and see that it's not being tampered with.

She devolves into infantile stammering near the end of her monologue because she's an idiot. You're an idiot for listening to her empty words and ignoring everything I'm telling you. Those two say nothing, and everything they imply is incorrect. You should really look up these terms:

Root DNS
IANA
SIPRNET
How BGP works

You're not worth the time to provide links, so go find the actual truth yourself. It's technical, and scary, but if you tried, you could come back in as little as a week and have a good laugh at how stupid you sound in this thread.

Who said it would be just two countries? How long could it take to hand over everything to a single server for the entire world, and that server could then be censored? This isn't about the technical level. If there are 10 systems and all 10 systems are compromised, then 'how this can't possibly work' goes out the window. This could be the first, or the last step required depending on how it's already configured elsewhere.

For a minute let us assume DNS and named lookups are removed (simply shut off). I personally don't memorize the IP addresses for Yahoo, Google, YouTube, AOL, Amazon, GoG and a million other locations, and only working off cached values would only work so long. In theory it could take mere minutes before the internet could be rendered inoperable.

I already have a basic/general understanding of how networking works, and the TCP/IP packets, which involves setting a LocalLAN network with no connection to other computers; Manual static IP addresses or DHCP, transferring files with port numbers and the like, even manually adding names to the lookups for each computer (which can get cumbersome).

It is said, a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

Regardless this isn't something to be swept under the rug and forgotten.

Would someone call it spam if I reposted a recent video (2 hours old) that spells out everything in detail of why this handover is a bad idea? Cruz, regulations, security concerns and other things are presented and it's quite well done.

edit: Hmmm... I'll drop it here anyways. It is directly related afterall..

<span class="bold">ACTION REQUIRED</span>: <span class="bold">STOP THE INTERNET TAKEOVER NOW</span>

48 hours away before it's either stopped, delayed, or transferred over. A few articles I came across.

At least 5 votes/countries who would/could censor the internet at large.

States suing to stop internet handover

THE INTERNET TAKEOVER IS HAPPENING


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/30/internet_handover_is_go_go_go

All I've seen is that there is nothing to worry about because the sites reporting on this are ''unreliable''.

So let's see, if someone appeals this and drags it out for as long as they can just for the sake of it.

Ted Cruz must be livid.

A DDOS attack on a DNS server/provider on east coast left a large number of states in a blackout unable to use a number of sites/services.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/when-the-entire-internet-seems-to-break-at-once/504956/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3859500/Widespread-internet-havoc-major-attack-takes-websites-offline-Spotify-Twitter-sites-suffer-outages.html

I think Hillary was behind it.

Unrelated to the topic of the thread. Since, as we've established, the root DNS banks are not handled by anyone affected by the changeover, this belongs in a news post rather than here.

We've also established that you don't really understand how DNS works, or anything else network-related, so it's not surprising you made this mistake. There have been three other large DNS attacks in the recent past; one just last year. This is merely business as usual.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/24/internet-crashes-will-be-hard-to-stop-after-obamas-internet-giveaway/