
Duffy and Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act - snaky
https://duffy.house.gov/press-release/duffy-introduces-the-protecting-internet-freedom-act
======
mmastrac
While this seems rational, is this a play for them to gain some 'net
credibility to start pushing harder to kill Net Neutrality? Aren't the players
coming out in favour of this bill the same ones who have been arguing against
NN? [1]

I'd be wary of letting any of these folks have a say on the future of the
internet.

[1] ie:

Heritage Action: [http://heritageaction.com/agenda/strong-economy/internet-
fre...](http://heritageaction.com/agenda/strong-economy/internet-freedom/)

TechFreedom: [http://techfreedom.org/post/134532740524/net-neutrality-
cour...](http://techfreedom.org/post/134532740524/net-neutrality-court-fight-
is-really-about-fcc)

National Religious Broadcasters:
[http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2015/03/04/no-faith-
base...](http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2015/03/04/no-faith-based-case-
fcc%E2%80%99s-net-neutrality-power-gra)

~~~
__jal
Agreed. There are very few people about whom I feel this way, but if Cruz
supports something that sounds good to me, I'm hanging on to my wallet until I
figure out the scam.

(Not that this law necessarily sounds good to me.)

------
folz
Sorry if I'm missing something, but what's the context for "President Obama
wants to hand over the keys to the Internet to countries like China and
Russia"? I can't seem to find the right phrases to google.

~~~
nickff
This is a response to the potential internationalization of ICANN, and most
importantly, its IANA department.[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Auth...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority#Oversight)

~~~
folz
Ah, thanks very much! For confused readers like me,
[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023035462045794396...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579439653103639452)
is a good article linked from the Wikipedia page.

(Google the title "U.S. Plans to Give Up Oversight of Web Domain Manager" and
click through from search to avoid the paywall.)

------
protomyth
Saving you the need to scroll to find the text:
[https://duffy.house.gov/sites/duffy.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_...](https://duffy.house.gov/sites/duffy.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/16.06.08%20-%20DUFFY_110_xml_0.pdf)

"To prohibit the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
from allowing the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions contract to
lapse unless specifically authorized to do so by an Act of Congress."

A little over 6 pages, so not a tough one to read. Might be close to the same
number of words as the press release.

------
punkcoder
"The Protecting Internet Freedom Act would also ensure that the United States
maintains sole ownership of the .gov and .mil top-level domains, which are
vital to national security."

I almost did a spit take...

~~~
mikek
I agree with this. I like being able to know that a site is trustworthy based
on it having a .gov domain name.

~~~
bpodgursky
I mean... do you really want to have to guess whether congress.gov is run by
the government, or some random country which decided to sell of .gov TLDs for
extra cash?

Or, potentially more deceptively to consumers, "healthcare.gov", etc.

~~~
xg15
I agree this is a problem worth solving. But shouldn't it be solved for every
country, not just the US?

As a non-US citizen, I find it strange that matters of global internet
governance are discussed with apparently mostly arguments about US-specific
issues.

~~~
BlakePetersen
As a US citizen, I find it strange as well. But our Republican Party seems to
believe we're special and should be treated differently. We aren't and we
shouldn't be.

------
sago
Also known as the "Let's Straw-Man Obama because we Really Hate Him Act".

------
hurricaneSlider
As an international user, it is in my opinion fantastic that the White House
is attempting to cede control of key internet infrastructure. Why should a
single country act as the custodians of a global service?

~~~
gnoway
Well, it's ours. We created it. We've allowed other countries to use it
because it benefits us to do so.

I realize this is probably not the popular opinion, but I'm not sure it makes
any sense really to give up control over it.

~~~
2bitencryption
Also, they have a point about the free speech. For a system in which free
speech is indispensable (the internet), there is actually only a handful of
countries that seem to get the whole "free speech" thing correct, the US among
them.

~~~
int_19h
We're not talking about some kind of Aquinas Protocol here, but rather who
controls the DNS root zone. How much censorship potential is there, really?
Especially when it's likely to end up being managed by committee, which
basically means nothing gets done unless everyone agrees?

~~~
xg15
The DHS seems to have seized non-US domains in the past on disputed legal
grounds.[1]

I'm not completely sure, but I'd think a transfer to a non-US entity would
make this harder in the future.

[1] [http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-
domai...](http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-
registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/)

------
snaky
> .@SenTedCruz and I introduced a bill to ensure that President Obama can't
> terminate U.S. oversight of the Internet

[https://twitter.com/RepSeanDuffy/status/740636388186546176](https://twitter.com/RepSeanDuffy/status/740636388186546176)

~~~
BooneJS
I'm sure some think-tank wrote this bill; thankfully there are Congressmen who
can introduce.

------
0xcde4c3db
Are there any indications that Verisign might be pulling the strings here? It
seems like they would be the party getting the most benefit out of this, i.e.
protection against having foreign interests take away their registry business.
Or am I mistaken about how control of that deal works?

------
Apocryphon
This seems to be less a free speech vs. government censorship issue, and more
of an international control vs. one-nation control issue. Whether managed by
the ICANN or the NTIA, _some_ government is going to be regulating these
standards and domains.

~~~
marcoperaza
So let's keep it in the hands of the government with the strongest free speech
protections in the world.

~~~
Apocryphon
Finland it is!

[https://rsf.org/en/ranking](https://rsf.org/en/ranking)
[https://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-
wo...](https://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2016)

~~~
marcoperaza
Those rankings are unscientific and, especially when it comes to Western
countries, very political. Placing Hungary above the US for press freedom, for
example, should be a red flag.
[http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com//2012/01/26/usa-usa-
were...](http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com//2012/01/26/usa-usa-were-no-47/)
. (I strongly disagree even with the criticism of Occupy arrests. The right to
protest is not a license to permanently make camp on private property or
public property that's supposed to be available for other use.)

Finland has laws that ban "publishing data, an opinion or other statement that
threatens or insults a group on basis of race, nationality, ethnicity,
religion or conviction, sexual orientation, disability, or any comparable
basis. Ethnic agitation is punishable with a fine or up to 2 years in prison,
or 4 months to 4 years if aggravated (such as incitement to genocide)"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Finland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Finland)
. And as a member of the EU, Finland has to follow the right-to-be-forgotten
ruling.

------
JumpCrisscross
Amusing that this technology bill on Duffy's site [1] is titled
"C:\Users\CBOSBO~1\AppData\Roaming\SoftQuad\XMetaL\7.0\gen\c\DUFFY_~1.XML -
16.06.08 - DUFFY_110_xml_0.pdf".

Is it common for Congresspersons to use Xmetal software [2] (or its ilk) to
edit bills?

[1]
[https://duffy.house.gov/sites/duffy.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_...](https://duffy.house.gov/sites/duffy.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/16.06.08%20-%20DUFFY_110_xml_0.pdf)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMetaL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMetaL)

~~~
jhardcastle
From the second paragraph of your own wiki link:

> Government agencies also use XMetaL for tracking legislation.

------
bcheung
Doesn't the president have veto power? Seems kind of silly to make a law that
says Obama can't do something when he can just veto said law.

~~~
marcoperaza
Issuing a veto makes it front page news. I'm not sure the democrats want to be
seen as handing over the internet to dictators and theocrats, over the
objections of Congress, in an election year. The White House has only gotten
so far on this because it hasn't broken into the political consciousness yet.

------
walid
Cruz fighting for internet freedom, Obama expanding social welfare after
cutting it, Clinton fighting for healthcare and minimum wage.

I'm not trying to make this political but thank you Bernie Sanders. After the
success of Bernie's grassroots movement traditional politicians are trying to
appeal to the more progressive portion of the population since Trump controls
the angry.

~~~
pilsetnieks
Eh, the very first paragraph dispels that notion. It's not fighting for
Internet freedom, it's fighting for freedom of the Internet to be controlled
by Americans.

While I agree that up to now ICANN and IANA have done their work reasonably
well, I wouldn't want them to be under influence of a single geopolitical
entity. Then again, I certainly don't want them to be under the influence of
all geopolitical entities, and be dragged down to the average of the whole
world (like the UN Human Rights Council headed by Saudi Arabia) — we shouldn't
aspire to mediocrity if we can set an example by aspiring to greatness.

~~~
marcoperaza
All governments and bureaucracies suck. Let's keep the internet in the hands
of the one that has the strongest legal commitment to free speech and due
process. Not even European countries, with their narrower and more nuanced
conceptions of free speech, are fit for this purpose.

------
fluxsauce
> The Protecting Internet Freedom Act would also ensure that the United States
> maintains sole ownership of the .gov and .mil top-level domains, which are
> vital to national security.

Why? Because of hard-coded logic around those TLDs? Or is to establish that
the US Military is always the top domain so canada.mil doesn't become a thing?

~~~
barsonme
Without advocating either way, right now both are (afaik) fairly synonymous
with the US government and its military. I could see how they'd consider it
harmful if a foreign actor (or anybody, really) creates, e.g., sssa.gov which
steals your information.

------
andrewclunn
So do I trust unelected international organizations or the US government
less... That's a tough one.

~~~
marcoperaza
Given that any such international organization would be controlled by groups
of countries, and given that US free speech protections are vastly stronger
than anywhere else in the world, I say we don't fix what ain't broken. No need
to give Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia a vote. Even huge swaths of Europe
would try to control hate speech, or try to impose their privacy laws on the
rest of us.

------
tradesmanhelix
Wondering if the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies to the
changes that the Obama administration is proposing?

IOW, what about the way that the internet is currently run is broken or
warrants these changes?

------
Johnny555
Of course, other countries don't need the USA to regulate their own internet
infrastructure - they can fork off their own DNS and IANA functions within
their countries, with as much or little cooperation with the USA as they
desire.

------
trollian
Brought to you by people who have endorsed Donald Trump for President.

~~~
snaky
Cruz never endorsed Trump.

~~~
jsprogrammer
He is apparently hosting him at a rally, though.

------
random28345
I don't really know if the IANA should be managed by an international body,
but the fact that Ted Cruz and the President of National Religious
Broadcasters are in favor of this bill automatically make me think this bill
is trying to prohibit speech or invade privacy. And the fact that "President,
Americans for Limited Government" is supporting maintaining government control
of the Internet makes it sound like standard right-wing hypocrisy. And the
fact they frame the bill as an attack on Obama makes it even more suspect.

If ICANN is intentionally lobbying people like this, it automatically makes me
think that it should lose the contract, regardless of the quality of their
actual stewardship.

~~~
dfsegoat
Cruz (no matter what you think of him) is from a family that fled an
oppressive dictatorship, and he also specialized in constitutional law at
Harvard (and argued Heller vs. DC for the 2A), why would he want to "prohibit
speech"?

