Slashdot Mirror
ccTLDs Revolt Against ICANN
person-0.9a writes: "It seems that the ccTLD organization is very unhappy with how little they get from ICANN. They're so unhappy in fact that the ccTLD's have removed themselves from ICANN. Check out this article on zdnet for the full story."
The ccTLD's are protesting ICANN only as far as ICANN is thie organization that is supposed to support their technical decisions. In actuality, it's the DNSO and the heirarchy within ICANN that is being protested.
I was thinking about this the other day, and was wondering when, if at all, the ccTLD people were going to come out for, against, or neutral in the ICANN problems of late. While this isn't a response against the TLD policies, it is a response against the organization in general, and if the ccTLD's were to take their business elsewhere (i.e., New.Net), it could cause serious problems for ICANN's legitimacy as the "One True Root", since New.Net would also be hosting about 250 legitimate TLD's.
And on a side note, what's the big deal ICANN seems to have about adding a whole bunch of TLD's anyway? IIRC, a large percentage of the ccTLD's were added within months of each other, and it doesn't seem that the net has blown up yet. Why is adding 10 more gTLD's going to cause problems?
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
How ironic that it is Britain and all the other countries that are revolting against the US-dominated ICANN tax authority, for the same reason that the colonists dumped England's tea shipments into the harbor.
Irony can be pretty ironic, don't you think?
Edith Keeler Must Die
The intro blurb is wrong. The revolt is not against ICANN, but against the structure of representation within ICANN. The ccTLDs voted to leave the Domain Name Supporting Organization, not ICANN itself. In fact, what they are looking for is increased representation on the ICANN Board, not to leave the organization altogether. -- Bret
On 2001/02/08, he testified before the House committee on Energy and Commerce subcommittee of Telecommunications. He said:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to describe the efforts of ICANN to introduce additional competition into the Internet name space, while at the same time prudently protecting against possible disruption of this extremely important global resource for communications and commerce.
Just how is it introducing additional competition by giving Verisign a 10 year monopoly on .com .net I just don't know. Just how does he plan to protect against possible disruption of the internet by introducing a confilcting TLD (.biz) I don't know. He said further:
The basic message I would like to leave with you today is that ICANN is functioning well, especially for such a young organization with such a difficult job.
It functions so well, in fact, that the second largest ccTLD just left in disgust. Going a bit deeper:
The recent action to introduce seven new Top Level Domains (TLDs) into the DNS will double the number of global TLDs and at the same time will not, we believe, create serious risks of destabilizing the Internet -- something I know none of us wants to see. The fact that ICANN, in just over a year, has been able to generate global consensus on this issue -- which has been fiercely debated for most of the last decade -- is a testament to ICANN's potential to effectively administer the limited but important aspects of the DNS that are its only responsibility.
On destablize the DNS system by introducing a conflicting TLD? I want what he's smoking! As for creating a global consensus, another opium pipe dream. Do you seriously think that the people with .biz names agreeded to have them taken away? If you do, I want what YOU are smoking. As for the "effective administer" et seq. remark, only if you ignore those that disagree with you, Dr. Cerf.
To give him some of his due, Dr. Cerf's job isn't an easy one. Perhaps this IS the best that can be done in a very complex and contensious business. I can't help but feel that it COULD be better, and possibly WOULD be better with someone else at the helm. However, that isn't likely to happen.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
This is not a Fugazi