Judge denies block on Internet address transfer

Excuse me, prove that now things HAVEN'T changed. Prove that oversight is the same as it was. You cannot because this was fiat. Fiat by its nature is at the whim of the executive. Do you have a seat inside the skull of our executive?

a reply to: Fools
Hard to prove a negative. But here is the law which governed the contract with ICANN. Maybe you can point out the part which specifies the level of control which the US government had. You may want to refer to section 902B
NTIA

a reply to: Phage

I appreciate you. You look things up. It is uncommon.

Now though, this miasma of font will require a team of legal aids to sift through. Of course I do not have such a thing at my disposal.

My general thoughts on this are this: More Byzantine floppery to employ more princes and princesses. Give them meaning at the expense of everyone else. Its a normal human flaw. In our nature as they say. And then when it shatters due to its own retarded weight - we all pay.

a reply to: Fools

BTW, did the old CTRL F on 902B and it did not present itself.

a reply to: Fools

More Byzantine floppery to employ more princes and princesses.

Less, actually.
In reality.

a reply to: Fools

I won't hold your hand.
Research bears its own benefits.

And I will hold yours. I like to feel a pulse.

a reply to: Fools

That's creepy.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Why are people getting so worked up about who gives out internet domain names?

I think this whole kerfuffle boils down to some Americans wanting to maintain vicarious control of the Internet. They cannot stand the thought of the U.S. not being in control of everything so they can stand on their soapbox and proclaim how great America is because they control everything.

a reply to: Kryties

What exactly made it vicarious?

a reply to: Phage

I am a creepy person sometimes. As such I am prone to say creepy things.

SPAM removed by admin