The Obama administration stunned some, irked others and alarmed most conservative officials in congress when it announced that it will cede control of its ownership of the Internet’s Domain Naming System (DNS) and other important auxiliary powers to an international authority which is yet to be determined. Its membership, makeup and exact character is projected to be officially established no later than mid 2015.

Most regular users of the World Wide Web have no idea who is actually running the internet, let alone that it was in control of the U.S government or that Obama had control over who would get control of it. Go figure.

Not surprisingly since the debacles in the middle east during troubles in Egypt a few years ago and the recent problems in Turkey, It turns out that international pressure was being placed on Obama to cede over the powerful Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (known by the ironic name: ICANN) to some sort of multi-shareholder group made up of governmental and private world organizations of business, religious and scientific consortiums bundled together to be objective keepers of the web.

Many skeptics  have said in so  many  words:  “Good luck with that.”

The transition is to take place under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA), an ancillary department of the U.S. Government’s Department of Commerce. The plan is to have ICANN lead international talks on a new organizational model, which will replace NTIA’s role in overseeing the global Domain Naming System(DNS) and the important Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

If you’re keeping score at home, this can be very confusing; let it suffice that all the above mentioned organizations are U.S. government institutions. Naturally, world governments like Russia, Iran and China are looking on from the outside. None of them are sure how equitable things can be in times of crisis, given the fact that all the institutions overseeing the whole complicated transition are nothing but arms of the executive branch of the U.S. government.

What the whole plan amounts to is giving up the power of who hands out names to whom, who assigns domains, and who gives out ID numbers. Obviously without approval of these things one cannot operate within the World Wide Web. At least, such as it exists today.

With that power the U.S. has been able to decide who gets on the web. So far the U.S. has been liberal and free-thinking in its approach and guardianship of this growing world institution of informative power. It is speculated that Obama has authorized this because of accusations of widespread communications surveillance by US intelligence authorities and of charges of spying on businesses, politicians and governments. The world and the private, political and business interests within the U.S. are starting to revolt.

A cry of alarm went up immediately from a number of sectors in the United States. Congress, the military, those on the right – even centrists raised doubts and vehement objections to Obama’s vague plan. They say it would be tantamount to ceding over control of the strategic Internet to hostile and internationally irresponsible rogue nations, visa Russia, Iran, China, or worse still, blocks of militant terrorists like Moslem extremists and Al-Qaida.

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee with oversight over NTIA and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released this statement:

“Frankly, I do not trust this administration to oversee such an important transition. The Internet should be governed by a multi-stakeholder model free of all governments. But as we saw during the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications, a treaty negotiation in Dubai, many countries are seeking to play an increased role in Internet governance. Specifically, in 2011 Vladimir Putin asserted his goal is to have ‘international control of the Internet’ through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based arm of the United Nations. Putin has already outmaneuvered the Obama administration on the diplomatic stage due to the president’s empty red-line threats and his tendency to ‘lead from behind.’ As we move into discussions on Internet governance, can we really trust this administration to have the negotiating backbone that is essential to maintaining an independent Internet?”

Throwing cold water on the senator’s fears, the internet free-access people were quick to say they would never let such a thing happen. Besides it could never fall into evil hands, nor would they let it happen even if it could.

The vision for international governance is argued along these lines by its proponents:

The internet belongs to the world and not any government or people. It is the first time in the history of man that a system has been devised that is separate from military muscle or political demagoguery. Therefore it has the chance to bring the world together in concourse and communion. Scientists can share, philanthropists like Dollar Bill Gates can dispense charity to the people everywhere, religions can commune with those of another faith, business can flourish fairly in a world market, and problems can be shared and solved in a global town meeting among every nation, people and continent. It just has to be unshackled by government, and provincial or local interest.

They assure us that it could never fall into the hands of a single demagogue or come under the thumb of a single political/military regime or particular religious or secular philosophical persuasion. But those with an eye on prophecy can’t help to notice the antichrist potential inherent in the power of the Internet and why a world leader would need it under his or her control. The antichrist spirit, by definition, seeks to control everything but most importantly its subjects’ souls.

It follows that someone aspiring to form this present day global village into a single dominion would have to control the names and domains and membership qualifications of the Internet. All the fuss now may seem blown out of proportion but it is not.  If an institution, government or person, even if it is a megalith of multiple people and powers, say, like the ‘multi-shareholders’ wants to control people’s lives, we can hardly conceive that one state, no matter how large, would own the keys to the vehicle. Whoever and whatever has the authority to approve the final decision has the absolute power.

Assurances have been given that there is a plan for transition that will ensure that no one nation or person can wrest control of the Internet in order to control economies, militaries, governments or individual’s thoughts and ideas. The problem with that is that pledges are the easiest things to forsake.

ICANN responds to the naysayers by saying it has a panel in place to develop proposals that would increase multi-stakeholder powers of governance and recommendations to start the work will be announced in May of this year.

The NTIA stands with ICANN. “The main goals are to develop a multi-stakeholder model; (and) maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the internet DNS; meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and maintain the openness of the internet. “

NTIA further affirmed that it would not accept a government-led or intergovernmental organization controlling ICANN. Groups such as the Internet Society, Internet Engineering Task Force and Internet Architecture Board as well as regional and national domain registrars are expected to participate in developing the new organization of ICANN. But until a new model is developed, the NTIA will continue to ensure its responsibilities towards ICANN. The senate committee on Science and Technology has said not so fast. They have promised to monitor this whole deal very closely. Until then we wait to see who gets the power.

A citizen watchdog group said, “In doing this, the United States would surrender ultimate control of what keeps the Internet free and accessible to virtually anyone, anyplace, anytime, to an unelected, uncontrollable “global community.” That “community” of wolves includes, among others, the likes of Russia, with its military already occupying a large portion of a neighboring country; Turkey, which is currently blocking its citizens from communicating on Twitter; and China, with its government-control of social media as tight as anywhere on the planet.”

NTIA is adamant about giving control to this eclectic international collection of governments and civilian, intellectual and social groups to act in consort as rulers of the Internet.

On March 19, 2014 right after the Obama administration announced that it was giving this authority to them, the NTIA issued this press release titled: “Promoting Internet Growth and Innovation through Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance”

“We have been clear throughout this process (the process of the U.S. government giving power over crucial Internet authorities) that any transition plan must meet the conditions of supporting the multi-stakeholder process and protecting the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet. I have emphasized that we will not accept a proposal that replaces NTIA’s role with a government-led or an inter-governmental solution. Until the community comes together on a proposal that meets these conditions, we will continue to perform our current stewardship role.

We look forward to a spirited discussion from the global multi-stakeholders as they begin discussions on the transition plan at the ICANN meeting in Singapore next week. I am confident that the global community will ultimately develop a thoughtful and appropriate transition plan that the U.S. Government will fully embrace.”

Senator Ron Johnson, (Wisconsin) released the following remarks on the decision of President Obama’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to relinquish oversight over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN):

“The U.S. has always played a leading role in overseeing the management of internet domain names such as .com and .org. The administration’s decision to relinquish that responsibility next year concerns me a great deal. If it could be accomplished successfully, migrating Internet governance from all governmental control would be a good thing – as privatizing the Internet domestically has made it one of the greatest deregulatory success stories in our history. But internationally, the risk of foreign governments gaining control of the Internet must be eliminated.

“As a member of both the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee with oversight over NTIA and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I will be monitoring this transition proposal very closely. We must stand strong and united against international control of the Internet. If we do not, it will be the end of Internet freedom.”

Johnson added that he did not trust Obama to handle the transition without being duped by nations like Russia that are antagonistic to freedom.