Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Takes on ICANN
c_honcho writes "Now the ACLU (and friends) is taking on the ICANN group for limiting our 'Net freedoms. I suppose it was only a matter of time." See the ACLU's letter for their concerns about ICANN's addition of new TLDs.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
My employer does not allow the employees to see the ACLU link. The net nanny software displays a message that threatens with termination if I don't stop trying to violate the company policy.
Is this message off topic?
Marko
The problem isn't that the heirarchy exists, it's that it's too flat. People fight over blah.com. Removing .com doesn't help anything, except it would stop the inanity of getting .net and .org for all .coms. But that's not anywhere near the main problem in DNS. The main problem is that Michael Blah, Blah Computers, Blah Moter Company, and Blah's Ole Time Family store all want blah.com.
The obvious way to fix this is to make a lot more gTLDs. Something like michael.blah.name (actually, I think this idea is stupid. People shouldn't be able to get domain names off their name. Way too many people have the same name.), blah.computers, blah.cars, blah.general.store, would be best. Somewhere out there, the trademark office *has* a list of trademarks for all catagories. Let's, right now, make a .trade, and put the catagory in front of it, and whenever you get a trademark, you can pay 10 dollars more a year and get a domain name too.
That completely removes all confusion. I want to reach Apple Computers, I type 'apple.computer.us.trade'. I knew Apple Computers is trademarked in the computer catagory, and no other computer company can call itself 'Apple', or 'Apple Computers', or 'Apple Computing' or anything having to do with apples.
I think it would also be a good idea for licensed businesses to get a .license or something. You know, if they're at franksroofing.build.ga.us.license, then, hey, they have a building license in Georgia. And so on and so forth. There are plenty of legal identifiers businesses have, and we should let them use them in a regulated system on the net.
Then, make a prefix for purely personal use, and one for informal organizations that aren't actually registed, and maybe a seperate one for pages put up my individuals that are intented to be a general resource (as opposed to those 'homepages' that people have, which go in the first). And completely and totally remove .com, .org, and .net. They have been completely screwed up, and just need to be trashed.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
What I can never figure out is why no one uses a .us domain. Aren't they free? Maybe no one knows where to register them!
You're not supposed to register "yourname.us", but only "yourname.city.state.us". And "cybertron.podunk-city.co.us" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
More info on .us domains (including how to register them) can be found straight from the horse's mouth.
This is the least important thing they could possibly be putting their efforts into.
How about legal bullying to steal or silence websites? How about legislation supporting such legal bullying?
Domain names are really not important. I know plenty of great sites without their own domain. Easily-remembered domains are only really important for people who advertise on TV.
The ACLU is just another money-sucking "cause" which makes noise to attract cash, and carefully avoids actually affecting the real problems that justify its funding.
---
NPR was interviewing some ICANN members the other morning. One of the callers reported that there is currently a measure being debated within ICANN to do away with publicly-elected seats. Karl Auerbach and Esther Dyson, who were guests on the show, confirmed this. (Side note: apparently Vint Cerf couldn't/wouldn't come unless his company was allowed to oversee the format and content of the interview!)
This dissolution of public representation is just plain wrong. The public votes in a member of the Chaos Computer Club and suddenly the corporate board of ICANN has the gall to discuss the removal of public representation?
Just brainstorming here, but what about newsgroup like names, such as comp.os.etc etc? Only reversed. Or whatever works.
.com. From there, everyone fights about what comes before that. Why not split that into several groups? For instance, resturaunts.com. Then the resturaunts can fight over just that level.
That seemed to work for a large number of groups because the individual control was not at such a high level in tree. What I mean is, all we have is
It's kinda like a b-tree. It's time for a split.
Jason
The ACLU should have provided a fictional example along those lines to illustrate the Sword of Damocles the UDRP is.
...and leave the internet to those of us who don't mind using dotted quads. :) I'm only half-kidding.
Here's an idea. How about we remove top-level domains entirely? Why not have a system where instead of browsing to "http://www.slashdot.org", I just go to "http://slashdot"? One obvious problem is what do you do about all the situations where there's x.com, x.org. x.net, etc. Well, the answer is, they all stay as they are, but we stop using TLDs for all new domains. So you could be just slashdot.
This means that your web browser would go to the A.root servers for the old TLDs, and instead of having a top-level server for each TLD, we'd have one for each letter of the alphabet (or whatever other characters in whatever other languages can start words, so that the language you're using is irrelevant and it isn't US-centric). Then we have a big ole distributed system of servers, each one of which serves a particular letter (or even group of letters, I dunno how fast those big-ass servers are).
So you've got a box that serves 'A' and 'B', one that serves 'C' and 'D', etc. That way, TLDs are a thing of the past.
The biggest problem of course is, who decides who gets which domains. And what about domain speculators (or people who are just rich jerks) who buy up hundreds or thousands of domain names?
How about a system where any given entity can only register one name per day? And it would cost something small, or maybe it would just be free.
Obviously this has a lot of work to go into it, but it certainly would be an improvement. Hierarchy is nice, but is it necessary? You could still of course register a name like "cia.usgovt" if the "usgovt" name wasn't already taken.
Maybe I'm just rambling. Oh well.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
"yourname.city.state.us". And "cybertron.podunk-city.co.us" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
If Colorado (.co.us), Nebraska (.ne.us), and Oregon (.or.us) would take the "city" field out of their domain patterns, they could get some business that would have otherwise gone to .com, .net, and .org, respectively. (Compare .co.uk and .org.uk.)
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?
Will I retire or break 10K?
The point is that it was funded at the expense of the taxpaying United States' citizens. Instead of thanking the U.S. for opening up access to the net, you (as a Canadian) want all countries to be equal partners with no compensation to the U.S.
The U.S. invested the money and took the initiative (and risk of failure) to build the Internet. Why don't you try telling Microsoft, Netscape, and AOL that you want to be an equal partner in their now successful net ventures and see how they react?
ACLU is wrong for thinking the ICANN can define the standards.
The internet community is also wrong. Throw your bag over your shoulder and get on board with an alternate root. Better yet, if you have the skills, propose a more open standard so that rooting doesn't need to be done in the homogenous way that it is.
--
The letter from the ACLU and its allies, addressed to outgoing Commerce Secretary Norman Mineta, argued that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) placed artificial limitations on the number of generic top-level domains that threaten freedom of expression for individual Internet users and noncommercial organizations.
What are they talking about? Just because a TLD does not exist places NO RESTRICTIONS on what a person wants to say. Freedom of expression is NOT threatened by not having a TLD for a specific purpose. If no new TLD's were made, would they also sue?
I am sorry if this offends people, but I really think the ACLU should calm down and focus.
So what your saying is....
"You will love the ACLU, until something happens which effects you in a way that causes your emotional feelings to overrule your logical judgement"
The ACLU is pro-freedom. There is a very simple concept here. "It is better to let 100 guilty men go free, than to convict one innocent man".
I firmly believe that this is true. 100, nay even 1 million convicted criminals does not undo the harm of putting an innocent man in prison.
To go even farther, forget about conviction. If a practice of law enforcement or other arms of the government has the potential to infringe upon the rights of an innocent party...then that practice DESERVES to be attacked, even if it means a guilty person going free.
You can catch a criminal the next time they commit a crime, you can't undo their crime, nor can you undo the damage that can be done by unchecked government.
Thats why the ACLU exists. Because people are "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" and deserve to be treated and defended as if they are indeed innocent UNTIL they are PROVEN guilty.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The internet needs to be seperated from the American government. Every country in the world should be able to 'share' the ability to add TLDs. Every country (I mean all countries - not just the ones the American Government likes) should be given the right to add as many TLD as they like... the present system is ridiculous what the hell does the US Dept. of Commerce have to do with the Internet..
For those Americans who will remind me that the 'Internet' used to be a DARPA project (etc etc): Whats your point? Times change. Only hubris and selfishness would keep you from putting yourselves on equal footing as the rest of the planet...
You're an ...you're not thinking clearly. Controlling DNS' is like telling you what street you can stand on to give your speech. All that will be left if corporate America gets its way will be alleys and swamps. If all the good streets (recognized and traveled by most people) are owned by major corporations then your right to speech is effectively denied. Think of it this way, how much free speech is there in a mall? No, there is no free speech in a mall. Its not a public space. People may falsly beleive they are public but they are not. There are no homeless in a mall. Malls are great places to feel safe and to consume while ignoring the truth of our society. And that's what corporations would wish to do to the internet. They don't want those pesky people gathering to discuss why GM cars are unsafe at GM.sucks.
That said, I think there's a LOT more room for anarchy (a good thing, in this instance) with regard to top-level domains and URL's. The ICANN is imposing artificial limitations (which is their right) that don't need to exist.
If the ACLU wants to fight them...go for it. But it's sillyness in the extreme. What happens if someone where to take the 'standard TLD' from ICANN and add additional TLD's at the 2nd level? (In effect, adding additional TLD to the TLD that ICANN registers)
As electronic communications become more regulated and "more like" other aspects of life it was inevitable that the ACLU would become concerned with them. High time. We could use an experienced and effective advocate like them
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
I applaud the ACLU for getting involved.