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.
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
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
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.
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 least you could have done is check your links.
I personally like OpenNIC, but there are even more like Pacific Root and commercial ones like New.Net
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents
>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.
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.
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.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
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