Slashdot Mirror
ICANN CEO Proposes Radical Changes
Froomkin writes: "ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn today released a plan for a "strong" ICANN that would have 5 of 15 Board members selected directly by governments and the rest by registrars, registries, plus a few Board-squatter-like ringers chosen by the ICANN Board or staff. The main justifications offered for this shift are that in order to be "strong" ICANN needs more money, more support, and less "process". Of course, promises Lynn, ICANN's "core values of openness and broad participation" should be "preserved". (Don't laugh. It's not funny.) "Meaningful participation" will be achieved by cutting out any direct representation for end-users. Oh yes, ICANN wants a much bigger budget, and to be independent of the US Dept. of Commerce, and to get direct control of the root server operators too, all so as to ensure that ICANN has unimpeded ability to execute its (undefined, growing) "mission". ICANN was supposed to save the Internet from governments; since major interest groups such as the ccTLDs and RIRs won't do what ICANN wants, and won't pay it, ICANN now turns to governments to save it from the Internet. See the Press Release here, and then look at entire plan, then visit ICANNWatch.org for updates and commentary." Yep. The proposal would eliminate any pretense of At-Large involvement in running ICANN - it would be solely a governmental and corporate body.
This sort of thing would only cause me concern if I felt that governments and corporations didn't have my best interest and whole-heartedly good intentions in mind.
I think that the Government should have at least a little bit of control (although not as much as the US has right now) and each government should be represented fairly (not this whole US gets .gov while the UK gov gets .gov.uk.) ICANN should really be an international body rather than the Dept. of Commerce one that is is now.
...just an End-User.
The problem with giving the End-User control in ICANN is that there are too many End-Users around the world to do this, and aren't the governments supposed to be representative of the people? As for corporations having control...I think they should have little, if at all. But who am I?
Just my US$0.02
Hargun
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
You know it, I know it, and they know it. They are just another "dot-bomb", but without the for-profit aspect: No leadership, constant change of direction, people in positions waaaaay out of their league, no clearly defined objectives, etc.
Brazil has decided you're cute.
...to UCANT.
(Universal Controller of All Network Traffic)
but really, don't they have better things to do than to help large corporations buy the rest of the internet?
I'm sure Esther Dyson (genuflects) is a very smart person and all that, but I shudder to think what will happen if governments and corporations are the only people left with any say on how the internet, and the web in particular, is run. I fully expect the world wide web to become just another string of TV stations with really lousy reception. Sort of like the cable access channel, only with product placements.
Perhaps Esther Dyson (genuflects) should think twice before auctioning off the rest of the public commons... again.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
If you look at the history of new communication methods they always become the domain, pun intended, of governments and businesses.
a sm at/class1/tvhist.htm
m at/class1/tvhist.htm
Telegraph and Radio: http://www.ipass.net/~whitetho/part1.htm
Television:
http://www.rcc.ryerson.ca/schools/rta/brd038/cl
I am surprised that the internet has lasted this long in the public after the government ceded control to a panel.
It all comes down to funding in the end. In 1999 they started making noises: http://www.rcc.ryerson.ca/schools/rta/brd038/clas
If we think that the domain situation concerning freedom of speech is murky now, wait until countries such as China, Iran, etc. get onto the board.
Well this article's been posted about twenty minutes and the responses are pouring in. Has everyone read the 16,000 word announcement that was the main link to the Slashdot post? I didn't think so.
One of the key problems here is that everything that ICANN is saying, in both their press release, and their 16,000 word announcement, is written in the most unimaginably dry style possible.
The wretched quality of the writing is, I think, deliberate. Because what people can't understand, they can't criticize.
How much money does ICANN leadership rake in each year? How about giving some competent writer $1500 of that, so that this mega-announcement and its press release can be written up in terms any interested person can get through? As it stands now, very few of us (and certainly not myself) are capable of debating this vitally important announcement. It can't be understood, and perhaps that's the way ICANN wants it.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
The more ICANN has [d]evolved, the more ICANN has gone away from its grassroot.
I am an ICANN member, - just a ordinary member thank you very much, - and I can tell you that I am really disappointed with ICANN's [d]evolution process so far.
Granted, there _are_ things that ordinary members like me don't know. Mebbe there are some valid reason for ICANN to do what it has been doing. I won't utter a blanket condemnation towards ICANN, not just yet.
But I have to say this - as I am a member of ICANN, I am also a member of the cyberspace, aka Netizen.
As a Netizen, and as one who don't really trust government - any government, mind you - that much, the ICANN's latest maneuver, in inviting the government to take such a large part of ICANN's operation really worries me.
If ICANN is let to do its own thing, there is a huge possibility that ICANN will be yet-another-irrelevant-organization.
I don't care who that ICANN CEO is, but this is what I will say - if ICANN forgets its grassroot, ICANN might as well fold its operation. Because without the grassroot, ICANN will no longer be representing ANYTHING relevant.
Governments and corporations already have their own way to express their views. ICANN was set up primarily to address the views of the grassroots.
No matter it's DCMA or ICANN's latest move, the future for grassroots in the cyberspace doesn't look good.
We keep losing in the power struggle. The corporate power and the bureaucrats from the governments keep on winning.
What will it be like 10 years of 20 years in the future, if the Net can not tolerate FREE VIEWS anymore ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
And exactly why should US congress be the ultimate governing body of the Internet? (or US government...). Internet is well past its earlier "US only" phase... Being international, and there not being many international organizations with any formal powers (UN being one of the few... and its powers are severely limited), it's hard to see any (existing) organizational body having "ultimate" control over Internet.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
The great benevolence of govenments such as China should serve as a shining model and example of plans like this. Who knows, the Chinese government may be able to bring down it's great wall, even Saudi Arabia as ICANT makes the internet safe for all good corporate citezens. What a glorious day this is for public networks and the independence of the North American Directorate. Can you feel the goodwill coming in from WIPPO, and DCMA? Every state will have it's say as the national borders go up in the name of unity. Intelectual property will be safe as will the big pubishers will no longer fear competition. Telcos can loose their fears of loosing their franchises as new more centralized and stronger means of information interchange are devised by ICANTs board members like Microsoft and Sun. The freedom this will bring is unbelievable. Like an advert flier says, there's no limit to the internet is there? Only strong government control will be able to squash the emergent wireless internet, they had better hurry!
Oh well, I did not expect more. As the people of the United States accept violations of the first and fourth amendments, the experiment that was the Bill of Rights dies. It started with regulation of the airwaves. It will end with electronic publishing. As all the dead tree acid paper rots and people are taught that obsolete communications methods are not to be trusted and the ideas contained in those rotting pages are no longer valid, and all electronic publishing comes under the control of the government and two or three large companies.
Bill Gates really can see the future. He's buying it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What would happen to Montserrat?
We are the people who are ultimately going to pay for this. Just what is it that ICANN is trying to sell us that is worth paying for? Making you feel secure isn't worth a cent of my money. The whole reason behind the proposal is that that the ccTLDs and other registries can't find a reason to pay what ICANN wants to charge. How much does it really cost to run a root server? How much more than that does ICANN want to charge?
Adding a superbureaucracy to ICANN somehow doesn't seem to add value to the product to me. As an end user and owner of a domain, all I want from whoever is running a root server is reliable enough propagation that if I want to access a domain by e-mail or ftp or via Web, I can with no screwing around. While a true Internet government responsible to the userbase might be an interesting thing, that has nothing to do with the ICANN proposal.
If you don't feel worthy to be part of the governance of the Internet, I agree completely with you. You aren't. Some of the rest of us might be. Go back to your TV set and believe whatever the pundits on CNN tell you.
Nobody has to get shot at by anybody to create alternate root servers that ICANN can't touch, and if ICANN actually gets it together far enough to make this happen, the question isn't whether there will be alternate roots, the question is how many. Do you want to have to select an ISP based on which root is most likely to have in its namespace the people and entities you want to communicate with?
What you have mistaken for a legitimate attempt of the Internet to govern itself is just another political scam to get us to buy services that nobody except a few major corporate and governmental interests who want better tools for intellectual property control and control of Internet content in general want.
The Internet is screwed up enough as it is and it should be obvious to any informed person that the ICANN proposal isn't even in the right general direction to fix what's wrong.
Will this clean up the spam coming out of Asia? Will this make open relay operators fix their servers? The other problems like insufficient bandwidth will be taken care of by the private sector when it becomes profitable to do so.
What do corporations do when governmental powers are made available to them? The DMCA, Cybercrime Treaty complete with secret protocols, and the new WIPO restrictions on use of copyrighted material are good examples. A corporate charter says to do things that are good for the stockholders, not for the public interest.
"Who shall watch the watchdogs?" The ICANN proposal says nobody... perhaps power exercised by backroom deals solely accessible to insiders makes you feel warm and fuzzy. If this is what you want to pay for, write ICANN a check with your money. NOT mine.
Tech Public Policy stuff
ICANN finally admitting that they are run by, and for, the large groups with big pockets is just truth in advertising.
Something everyone should read and understand is Reed's Law as in the end ICANN et al don't matter a lot...
By the time ICANN "gathers consensus and buy-in from various ancillary parties on the direction it wants for how it will make later decisions," users will have grown frustrated enough to not resist a takeover by a Microsoft-like entity- running roughshod over the idea of "openness."
Scientists report a massive change in the Earth's orbit. This change has been traced to the gyroscopic effect of Jon Postel spinning in his grave.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
For the supreme protest against ICANN, try an alternative root server, such as OpenNIC.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I'll have a more detailed analysis up at ICANNWatch in a day or so.
I have a blog.
Stuart Lynn, CEO of ICANN, announced today that the board has appointed a new member - Mr William Gates. Lynn said: "Mr Gates will help ICANN function as a strong organisation, dedicated to core values and open participation".
.NET and all domain names which do not include ".msn" will be banned.
/. reporter, asked whether "all our domains are belong to Microsoft?" which Mr Lynn dismissed by stating: "You are either with us or against us".
Mr Lynn also announced that the Internet will now be officially renamed
Jon Katz, infamous
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
The obvious answer is to have multiple root servers, and have a version of bind that can query multiple DNS hierarchies, with administrator specified weightings, or some sort of voting scheme. This seems so straightforward to me that I must be missing something. Can anyone explain?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
...we must create our own DNS. True: this may be rather difficult to implement (especially on closed-source architectures, like Windoze), but it is our [sarcasm=to_taste] only hope [/sarcasm] of finally escaping the capitalist clutches of ICANN "UCANT".
The first step will be selecting our own root server. This must obviously be a fixed IP, which would ideally be some hapless DSL user wishing to donate some bandwidth to the cause.
(To improve performance, clients could cache IP addresses they had already looked up. This would actually improve on the current system.)
In brief, we would create an alternate DNS, with more open rules on the creation of new domains. Think of it: Free domain names! Less government interference in the Internet? Who could refuse such a thing? Let us start today!!
(But don't ask *me* to help...)
TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.
OpenNic sounds like a reasonably democratic choice. They allow voting on new TLDs. If there is any criticism of them, I'd like to hear it right here. Remember, if we can't vote, we can still vote with our feet.
It's strongly apparent that a corporatist dictator is attempting to take over the administration of our Internet. In removing the voices of the end-users, absolutely rejecting direct democracy in ICANN, and dumping the board members we have already elected, I have but one thing to say:
ICANN must be destroyed! destroyed! destroyed!
Anyone on the board who has been conspiring with Stuart Lynn on his little decision need to show up in the center square for their just public flogging. Reputations of those individuals are hereby compromised, and may they never make one more cent in their pathetic careers. You know who you are.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
>Why? Because we paid for it and own it.
The US "owns" the *whole* internet, and paid for it? Wow.. am I ignorant. I guess it makes sense though, since Al Gore 'invented' it.
As far as I know, ARPAnet and the TCP/IP protocol stack were invented by scientists working in America (but you might want to go back and check all their nationalities... you might find a few suprises!). By extension the early internet was mainly in the US. But hey, have you ever heard of JANet (Joint Academic Network)? You know the early packet-switching network that the BRITISH had?
Yup, true story. 'Back in the day', there was a single link between what you so quaintly refer to as 'the whole internet' (e.g. the US network that grew out of ARPAnet) and JANet. You had to telnet to a host out on the US east cost (name escapes me at the moment, it was a long time ago) and then enter the JANet address you wanted.
I seem to remember that JANet address were 'backwards' too (e.g. org.slashdot.www )
As far as I know, JAnet was designed and built pretty much autonomously by the British. I don't ever recall hearing about American's desigining it, or paying for it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was based on X.25 too.
Anyway, the point is that several other countries had their own packet switched networks that eventually got hooked together to create the 'internet'. As the lowest common denominator its true that TCP/IP become the de facto standard, and yes this is an American invention.
But the honest truth is that the U.S. "paid for and own" the internet about as much as Al Gore invented pants.
Stuart Lynn, ICANN CEO (Primus: super mack-daddy of all ICANN biznezz?), whoever the hell he thinks he is, is obviously crying out for help because he says ICANN can't make DNS work in the future. I read his stupid whining polemic, and it isn't really worth more than a brief scan. He wants some real money and guns so he can pay lawyers and boss the root DNS server operators around. De facto, he says they can do whatever they want without accountability to the ICANN or anyone else. He wants to make policy decisions to govern the technical operation (and design) of current and future DNS services.
ICANN is going down, because it doesn't DO anything for anyone involved. He is like the country bumpkin character from Kafka's short story: Before the Law. BIND comes with a list of compiled-in root server IP addresses. You can query all of those for a complete and curent list of root servers. This is how your DNS server knows who to ask when it doesn't know the IP address you're trying to get. Your DNS server (at the whim of your ISP) could possibly start using root servers that are not on that list. The websites you thought you knew (or maybe just their typos) would not come up; maybe you would see some nasty pr0nz (from people who paid marketing $$ to your ISP) instead. The nasty pr0n fake root operators (NPFROs) can't guarantee the pr0n marketdroids that their sites will get hits because you might configure your computer to use an independent (or your own) DNS server that the ISP doesn't control. Therefore the ISP can't get marketing kickbacks for screwing with your DNS. Likewise, none of your ISP's upstream DNS providers can do it, nor any of the root DNS operators. People could always just stop hitting their DNS.
What Mr. Stuart Lynn wants is a legal binding document that says "one ring to bind them all" so his ICANN can force the root DNS operators to become like his own personal NPFROs, but now bona fide by the contract (called a Memorandum Of Understanding or MOU) that opens the root server operator up to civil lawsuits and criminal liability. He wants to say "You must agree on penalty of law to publish the list of root DNS servers I tell you to" to make the root DNS operators kow tow to the corporate and lobbying interests that pay.
Right now, nobody has any reason to pay him for anything. People who don't understand how the political consensus exists and flows in DNS de facto tried to make ICANN do it artificially. Everyone who can, right now should go learn how to run a DNS server (not trivial) and imagine you and all your buddies and everyone who used to be on Napster are all going to run your own root servers. Think yourself through all the possibilities, and act on the best one(s) you can come up with. Stuart Lynn is not going to get his money, because we can all change our DNS settings and no amount of money or lawyers can change that. Be prepared if some root servers start humming a different tune, you might decide you want to hear something else.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
As Bob Frankston has been saying and saying and saying: "The solution is very simple. Just separate the technical mechanism of the handles from their role as names. This can be done within the existing system by just assigning meaningless identifiers, such as numbers, instead of words. We already have the example of phone numbers that don't have any relationship to names."
And still no one is listening!
It's beyond foolish to think that governments represent their people in any significant way.
Certainly here in the 'States at least.
This kind of message is exactly what they need to hear, and also exactly the kind of message that will never make it through the bureaucracy.
Seriously, bureaucracy never tollerates the message that they are not needed. Bureaucracies always expand and extend their power, not restrict it.
As needed as this message is as a "reality enema", the ICANN and the governments whos force the ICANN thrives on will never officially "hear" it.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The only people who control the IP address space are the ones who control the routers. It's agreement between these people that allows the internet to exist. ICANN can proclaim whatever they want, but doing something like revocing all of China's IP space simply isn't going to happen.
.aol sites.
And the government controls the Doman Name System? Tell that to the 30 million americans who regularly hit
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Alternative NIC's have and do exist. Root name servers take very little resources compared to a major corporate web site, and there are many thousands of those.
.US is alive and well, but very few people use it. If the US government wants to set a good example, just retire the .GOV domain and start using .GOV.US like the rest of the world does.
.SPAM, go right ahead.
The AlterNIC.net ran fine for many years, and has recently morphed into another name which I am not going to bother to look up at the moment. Anyone who wanted to reach their sites merely pointed their name server to them. Gee, that was hard. But it was also not tollerated by the ICANN.
Governments already have full control over their own name space.
That's right, NO TOP LEVEL DOMAINS AT ALL. Just use the country codes for official real names.
Anything that doesn't use the official country code is not official nor controlled by government. If you want to point to
All bureaucracies will try to survive, regardless of their usefulness. The ICANN is no different, as can be seen by this proposal.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Tell your government to use, and enforce the contracts utilizing, the two-letter country code of their own country.
.us, South Africa over .za, France can enact all the francophobia it wants to over .fr, etc. etc etc.
That's it. No need for ICANN at all. The US has control over
Anything more is abuse of power.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Alternic.net did this for many years.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
And yes the Government does control the DNS system that all of us use everyday. The US govenment ordered NSI to give the A root server to ICANN and I believe it(or they) sits in California as we speak.
All it takes for the typical end-user to begin using the open root is a few minutes' engaged in some independent action. I can see a couple hundred TLD's -- ICANNot!
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
ICANN's management created this monstrosity on its own initiatiative - it is esssentially an act of gross insubordination by ICANN's management and an act of disdain for the Board of Directors and for the internet community.
This "restructructuring" is a complete recreation of ICANN, but with even the hint of public participation stripped away.
I just go off the airplane home from this ambush. I'm really ticked off.
What make you think your ISP can't catch all your requests to the root servers and feed you what they want? ICANN might start by encypting their communications streams, but I doubt that's on the corporate agenda. Then again, your ISP can substitute any kind of IP for IP you request.
I don't really know the ins and outs of the protocal but running DNS is trivial with Debian. It's a binary install that sets itself up and works, no fuss. I'd prefered to use the at home DNS, but it never worked and they only offered me one machine to chose from in a different state. Needless to say, mine worked much better.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I had one of those annoying on-the-tip-of-my-tongue experiences, but I felt like I had to say something. So I stammered and blurted out:
Unfortunately, that expansion is now stuck in my head.I wonder if this will mean ICANN will have enough balls to make Network Solutions (or I guess VeriSign now) stop sitting on domains. They refuse to release almost all domains that expire...they just sit on them and sit on them and sit on them (unless of course you use their SnapNames backorder service).
//m
All the proof we really need that ICANN is irrelevant, defunct, incompetent, and dangerous lies in the fact that example.com, example.net, and example.org now resolve, thanks to ICANN and Kent Crispin, directly contradicting their definition in RFC2606.
These are the people who want MORE control? They should be kept as far away from name and IP-space as possible.
Personally, I'm just waiting for them to blunder big enough that someone in the USG will be forced to consider the incident a terrorist act (and I think a brief conversation with the Office of Homeland Security about the importance of DNS and the danger to the US infrastructure if it's destabilized by non-technical demagogues should take care of that.)
.@.
As I have said previously why not set ICANN up like the UN that way there would be no one dominating party and all voices would be heard.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
Please investigate DNSSEC. True the ISP can tranparently proxy your DNS requests, but he would have to log each of his successfully spoofed DNS answers and bill based on that. The marketdroids will want proof they are getting something for their money.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
But ICANN's decided that not only has it scammed its way into control (as opposed to the IETF committee that was working on the same problems), but that it should increasingly get rid of any grassroots control, ignoring as much as possible the processes for elections by the actual public for members of its board. Now that it's declared itself no longer bound by the processes that it always refused to follow anyway, it's time to dump it. Part of that process is replacing control of the root - Lynn's proposal itself says that the root servers aren't really under ICANN's control or funding now.
Dump ICANN, I say!
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Meanwhile, I'd say to ICANN's current leaders, that you're not Al Haig, and you're not in charge here.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I think it would be easier to resurrect the IANA.
--Blair
"No, really."
ICANN is in the pocket of the moneyed interests, and has shown no interest at all in a "better" Internet, only one with them having more control. Sort of like Microsoft but worse, because it is arguable that Microsoft actually produces something :-)
.com etc) because the fat cats who "own" them would see their net worth go dot bust if there were real competition, such as letting anybody who wants to run a root server with their own idea of top level domains.
For instance, ICANN very much wants to restrict top level domains (.edu
I believe ICANN is also behind the atrocious domain name resolution panels, which you may have heard about. I could be wrong here, I think it was ICANN who set them up, but it might have been someone just as slimy. In case you haven't been following this, people who registered a domain name years before some corp with $$pull$$ still lose the domain name because the complainer gets to choose the judge of their choice, and of course the judge$ with fore$ight $aw the light early on and alway$ rule for the corp$, thu$ en$uring more bu$ine$$ coming their way, a good illustration of positive feedback.
ICANN has stalled at every possible point in every possible way when any smell of true Internet representation comes up. They truly want to be dictators, because they are running an unnecessary bureaucracy, and the only way to perpetuate it and line their pockets is to keep the riff raff out of it.
Their problem is that they are not necessary, a true bureaucratic solution in search of a mission. The Internet could get along better without them. People would choose their own root servers and never know the difference. ICANN only survives because businesses don't want to be bothered, and because teh US gov is also afraid of the riff raff -- some of these riffraff no doubt use crypto to communicate dirty deeds with each other, so best to keep a bureaucracy in charge.
You should care because they are in search of power to perpetuate their useless bureaucracy. The only way to do so is to MAKE themselves necessary, much as prison guard unions HAVE to be against parole and rehabilitation if they want to increase their power, same as lawyers writing laws and DEA thugs setting national drug policy. They need to be nipped in the bud.
</rant>
Infuriate left and right
Rather, I would advocate simply having lots of privately run non-generic TLDs and hardly any ICANN at all
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
IBM spent at least 2 years (maybe more, my data is 2 years old) of it's $60M/yr Washington lobbying budget to prevent the creation of new TLDs to protect its trademarks.
That's just one thing we've found out. You'd be a fool to believe they were the only ones.
Need Mercedes parts ?
It's difficult to imagine why you think we're a scam Bill, when it's the ICANN franchiees that were dragged into court for running an illegal lottery after ICANN staff ("lawyers") had spent the losing applicants money to review the winners proposals and bless them.
:-)
Perhaps you have a bad taste in your mouth from some of the 1996/7 bad craziness that went on. That didn't do anybody any good, no argument there, but those people have, uh, "retired" mercifully. And hey, if it's good enough for an ICANN baord member to use the ORSC root, it's good enough for you
If you don't want to be scammed, don't spend any money. You can still have an non-ICANN domain name , honest.
Need Mercedes parts ?
So don't use any root servers. Secondary the root zone of your choice and cut out that intermedate step in name resolution, and you'll be diminishing the load of those poor overworked legacy root servers, and you'll be resolving names as fast if not faster than what you're doing now.
Remember hosts.txt? Think of your own copy of the root zone as that on steroids. You can even do this with old Windoze with a really nifty program called "Simple DNS+".
Need Mercedes parts ?
Jon used to run the IANA as a part time task. Think about it. One guy... part time. If you're familiar with the organizational structre of the ICANN that replaces it, it's a little mind boggling.
The only mistake he ever made was accepting government funding. That gave the USG the crack it needed to claim owbership of it: "we paid for it".
Need Mercedes parts ?
Why is it so difficult to de-centralize the top level domain administration? There must be some research proposals? I have one idea:
Let's set up 26 new TLDs:
a.
b.
c.
.
.
.
x.
y.
z.
After that, if I want to have a name www.anssi for my server, I will go and talk to the administrator of domain "i." And register there a domain www.a.n.s.s.i.
Depending on if the domains "s.i.", "s.s.i.", etc. already are registered, I need to go to talk to the highest order domain administration that is already registered.
After that we need to standardize a convention, that a resolver breaks down the last part after the last dot in a name into letters (www.anssi -> www.a.n.s.s.i), before it forwards the query to a DNS server.
Additionally the old TLDs will also be served in new "synonymous domains"
c.o.m.
f.i.
u.k.
.
.
.
etc.
Of course the old TLDs com., fi. and uk. still exist and work, if older resolvers query them.
Now happens something nice:
a) www.anssi works with the updated resolvers
b) *.com and *.fi work with all resolvers, both with the updated and old ones
c) manually written www.a.n.s.s.i. and www.yahoo.c.o.m. work with all resolvers
Yours,
Anssi Porttikivi
app@iki.fi
Anssi Porttikivi / app@iki.fi
I like your vision for the DNS Brad, but the problem with your vision of it... and ICANN's vision of it is that it's well, one persons vision of it. The DNS is big enough such that a subset of it can contain one mans vision of what it should be. That it, throw all the ideas of what it should d be together. I don't believe any one person - or organizatin should decide what the namespace should be (I don't see anything partitularly wrong with generic tlds, YMM indeed V), it should be allowed to grow organically like, say, usenet namespace did. Despite it's many flaws, usenet, and particularly it's namespace is still the worlds largest cooperative collaboratin.
The actual mechanics of how this is done is not terribly difficult (and yes, golly yo uhave some good ideas there, thanks) but is not as important as "you respect my ideas and suppoert them and I'll reciprocate" much in the same was as the UUCP paradigm of "I'll pass your packets if you pass mine".
RS
Need Mercedes parts ?
Yup, true story. 'Back in the day', there was a single link between what you so quaintly refer to as 'the whole internet' (e.g. the US network that grew out of ARPAnet) and JANet. You had to telnet to a host out on the US east cost (name escapes me at the moment, it was a long time ago) and then enter the JANet address you wanted.
I don't recall any of the NSFNET relay machines being anywhere other than the ULCC (University of London Computer Centre.)
There were also a couple of links between JANet and EARN (European Academic Research Network.)
Anyway, the point is that several other countries had their own packet switched networks that eventually got hooked together to create the 'internet'.
Many of them, certainly in Europe were already "hooked together", the only changes were to the protocols used.
Please mod parent up moderators.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
...as the elected North American at-large representative.
(reposted from here because original poster, rs79, apparently did not have enough karma to bump this up to being visible)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Regards
Mikael
Pawlo.com
Paul Mockapetris, creator of the Domain Name System was asked, what do you wish you had invented?
.REG, for trademarks would act as certificate of authentication and directory, when entered directly.
He replied, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."
The Internet is going to the dogs.
Fact: UDRP is not only imperfect and inconsistent - it a fatally flawed system.
Fact: You are being deceived - the authorities know the answer to trademark problems on the Internet.
The United States Department of Commerce and the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization are hiding it.
The US Patent and Trademark Office virtually admitted this, "The questions you raised with respect to trademark conflicts, as well as the proposed solutions, have their basis in good common-sense. As such, they have been debated and discussed quite exhaustively within the USPTO, the Administration, and internationally."
Honest attorneys, including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III (UN WIPO panellist judge), have ratified the solution.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
This is most important - as Sunrise and UDRP abridges what words people can use in an open (repeat - OPEN) gTLD. They also give priority of one business over another.
Please keep re-reading last paragraph until you completely understand - they violate the First Amendment and go against Unfair Competition Law.
That is quite apart and separate from the fact that they know the solution.
Which is this:
User enters apple.com - is redirected to apple.computer.us.reg
User enters apple.newTLD - is redirected to apple.record.uk.reg
In the address bar - can you tell the difference between, apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg?
So, no 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' there then.
A new restricted TLD, of
Lawyers read feeble excuses link on my site before replying - I have heard them all.
Nobody wants the solution - because by not having it they gain. Primarily - Lawyers get loads of money from the conflicts and Big Business by muffling criticism and ensuring they monopolize their trademark words on the Internet.
My beliefs and findings, above and on my site, have proven corruption beyond all reasonable doubt - nobody can refute the logical conclusions made.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with United Nations WIPO.org.
I know there are multiple roots available to choose from, however I don't want to make a static choice. I want a named.conf entry where I can say, "check opennic first, then icann, then pacific root."
Alternately, I might want to say, "use the result from icann unless opennic and pacific root both agree on different result."
I want to be able to use multiple roots, not choose from multiple roots.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What does NetSol have to be "grilled" over? Where they have a monopoly (running the DNS system), they perform flawlessly. And where they don't perform flawlessly (customer support), they don't have a monopoly.
And if you're upset because you want more TLDs, that's ICANN's decision, not NSI's.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Every vote for or against a politician is a vote for the system. ICANN is a perfect example of just how unimportant ethics or "the people" are in the face of $$$$'s.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
ICANN's authority extends only so far as ISPs are willing to abide by their edicts. Fact is that ICANN is often ignored (what are they going to do? send in the troops) which is one of the factors that led to this proposal.
The U.S. can pass whatever laws it likes. These laws will have little effect on the rest of the world. If non-U.S. countries get annoyed with ICANN they'll simply replace the root server structure and any ISP that wants to can point it's DNS queries to the new root servers. This effectively means the end of ICANN no matter how many U.S. laws are passed or how loudly ICANN members throw a hissy fit.
As a U.S. citizen I find both your arrogance and ignorance rather annoying. Please, educate yourself about how voluntary compliance is required to get anything done on the internet before spouting off your neo-patriotic rhetoric.
And, as you clearly aren't keeping up with developments, less than half the backbone is now situated in the U.S.; the world could firewall us and keep on trucking, quite likely with the added benefit of reducing the spam they have to deal with.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Well, if your vision is to have sole control over a generic word or phrase, then yes, that's one vision that can't be fulfilled. At least not in a fair system.
.apple, and they would be allowed to do so, but they would not be allowed to register lower level domains which are generic pertaining to real apples, the kind that grow on trees. Any other domain would be fine.
Trademark law figured that out, with centuries to do it. You don't give anybody a monopoloy on an ordinary word.
And yes, that means in any language. That doesn't mean you can't use real words as TLDs, it just means you can't use them in their generic sense.
For example, "Apple directories Inc." might want to run the TLD
Thus nobody can have "delicious.apple" -- that's generic, and trademark law (and this system) would quite rightly refuse to give ownership of it to anybody. "Freds-delicious.us.apple" is
not generic so it could be OK.
Of course the TLDs would not check for this status. They would tell the registrants, "don't reigster a generic term, because you will lose it." Losing it is sufficient deterrent.
If somebody goes and registers delicious.apple in order to sell apples, somebody else could file a complaint. When they did, if it turned out you were trying to do this, you would lose the domain. No reason to risk that. (They wouldn't get the domain, you would just lose it.)
So yes, this prohibits one vision -- the idea of people getting monopoly ownership on generic names. Can you tell me how that vision can be accomodated in a fair system? If you can I am happy to accomodate it!
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
They did no such thing. First off Tim was practically unsackable. Tim left because he wanted to go, not because he was forced.
Second the CERN management only ever announced that they were wholehartedly supporting the Web even as the bastards were stabbing us in the back.
The historical claim of the US govt. to 'ownership' of the DNS infrastructure sounds to me exectly like the type of irridentist lunacy that leads to conflict. We got here first, you therefore have no rights, any rights you do have are ours to withdraw as we please.
Having seen this type of argument lead to the point where people get killed I think it is time to recognise that it is fundamentally fascist.
Governments do not acrue rights through abstract history, they derive power through the consent of the governed. Anything else is tyranny and tends to be swept away in due course.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Instead, my recollection is that there exists international olympic committee?
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Given your expertise Jay, I am greatly suprised that you don't get it.
You say, "Domain names are addresses, people! They're not speech!"
That is a simplistic and slightly misleading statement.
Domains names are for naming resources.
Paul Mockapetris, DNS creator, said, "The goal of domain names is to provide a mechanism for naming resources in such a way that the names are usable in different hosts, networks, protocol families, internets, and administrative organizations."
I use WIPO.org.uk because the United Nations use WIPO.org to take away domains from owners. There was no better domain for me to make protest and publish the solution to trademark problem.
ICANN and Big Business want control over words you can use on the Internet. They say to stop trademark problems - to my mind that is a lie. For one thing, they want to muffle you.
Which of these gets the message across better: WIPO.org.uk OR freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO?
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
You would think then, they would want solution to stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' on the Internet - wouldn't you?
A solution that does not make restrictions upon them or mean giving up their dot com domains?
The answer was self-evident - but they do not want it. This is even though Sunrise and UDRP abridges US citizen rights to even use dictionary words - it also gives priority of one trademark over another - with non-trademark holder standing no chance. This violates First Amendment principles and is against Unfair Competition Law.
great clarification - thanks!
Who decides which question? Most answers should be on my web site, and I've expanded some.
Of course the courts decide questions of law (such as trademark.) Not only should they decide this you can't stop them from deciding it. How can that be way off track?
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Besides, if there's an ICANN board member using ORSC, it's probably just that non-conformist Karl, who thinks that being actually elected by the user public should somehow allow him onto a board of elite appointees...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You miss the point:
Virtually ALL words are trademarked, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. True or False?
Why then - AS CONFLICT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID - do they not want solution to stop 'trademark conflict' and 'consumer confussion'?
The ANSWER is quite simple - Big Business wish dominant control of these words.
Reason being, they wish to flout Unfair Competition Law.
By giving priority to trademarks for ALL words, the authorities totally disrespect your rights to use them. True or False?
WHY is that, do you think?
The ANSWER is quite simple - amongst other reasons, they do not wish open public criticism of them.
Reason being, a good domain name shouts it louder.
I said, "Which of these gets the message across better: WIPO.org.uk OR freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO?"
You replied, "NEITHER!"
You later say, "Further, if I'm going to go looking for information about the WIPO, there's not a reason in the world why I'd blindly type wipo.org.uk into my browser's URL window, any more..."
Which are you most likely to find looking for information about UN WIPO in the UK - and which more likely to remember in a weeks time?
You also say, "Neither one of those addresses carries any information whatsoever about the point you're propounding."
As UN WIPO.org take away like sounding domain names to trademarks (like United Nations has trademark 'WIPO') - I think it makes my point quite well - True or False?
P.S. You also said, "Here's where you lose me: I see no logical connection whatsoever between Paul's statement and this one."
There was a paragraph in between those two, meant to explain WIPO.org.uk was a NAMED RESOURCE - you said domains are just addresses.
G> My beliefs and findings, [...], have proven corruption beyond all reasonable doubt - nobody can refute the logical conclusions made."
;-)
BM> That statement makes me wonder whether your findings and your ways to gather them really are separated from you beliefs.
You have no idea how I gathered them, have you Big Mouth?
I have spoken to many in the Legal Profession and also both US and UK authorities.
The authorities know to stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'. They could let ALL trademarks be used on the Internet without these problems.
Not one lawyer has been able to refute the solution.
Perhaps you would like to have a go - if you think your hard enough
No? - Perhaps then, you would explain why they do not use it?
Please check feeble excuses link before answering.
So, given that no all trademarks can use their mark (against Unfair Competition Law) - are they corrupt or are they stupid?
My money, given that they have virtually admitted knowing solution, is that they are corrupt.
BM> I'm refuting your post that suggests that you let your beliefs interefer with your findings.
My beliefs are based on reasoned logic - and have not been refuted. My findings are objective - and can be proven to be so. Please give evidence that the findings are not objective.
BM> I interpret this as if you think that your beliefs - in conjunction with your findings - have proven something, which of course is rubbish.
As my reply above shows - you misinterpret.
BM> I don't see corruptness or conspiracies here...
Just like there was no corruptness or conspiracies at Enron.
I see it to be just like there - they all gain - the Lawyers, ICANN, WIPO and US DOC.
You are either niave, stupid or somebody with vested interest (e.g. Lawyer or in Big Business).
I believe the corruption runs deep through ICANN right to the United States Department of Commerce.
For instance, checkout JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN.
A quote from Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
***End quote.
In a good two month period in October and November 2000 they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers; I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
They would lose a lot of money, if there were less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption.
I apologize - good grammar is not one of my skills :-)
;-)
But you are obviously of good intelligent to get my meaning
However, the system works perfectly well right now. I use it every day. The root servers are all on at least DSL, and mostly on T1+. The load in running a root server network like this really is minimal. Your problem was probably that you are behind a transparent caching proxy operated by your ISP. That'll screw you up good.