Slashdot Mirror
Farber, Neumann, and Weinstein Call for End to ICANN
lapse writes: "PFIR's latest policy statement calls for bringing
an end to ICANN. Without assigning blame, it calls for immediate action, and suggests some possible paths forward. Let's hope that this clear statement from such a respected trio will lead to better times ahead for Internet policy management." Salon also has an interview with Karl Auerbach about his lawsuit against ICANN.
First, as an immediate temporary measure, all Internet policy, operational, and other Internet-related functions currently performed by ICANN should be transferred, as soon as practicable while maintaining continuity, to a different, already existing non-profit organization (or organizations) on a non-permanent, strictly stewardship basis. One potential candidate we would suggest considering for this role would be the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), although there are a range of other possibilities of course. The process to plan and begin a transfer of responsibilities from ICANN should be initiated immediately.
If you say so, but these kinds of global decissions should not be made easily. If they are going to reconstruct the system, make it a good one, and something that will work in the future (with future expandings of the network).
The fact of the matter is that the internet as a whole cannot be properly managed, unless the world as a whole starts co-operating. Right now, you've got each country carrying out its own laws on the internet, and meanwhile conflicting laws between countries are allowing virtually no semblence of consistancy or even proper causality. Trying to organize something as "big" as the internet without a consistant causality is always going to be impossible.
What needs to happen, regardless of ICANN or ARIN or any other "internet regulation group", is some type of international agreement on what the internet entails. It was easy when the internet was just starting to pop up on the international platform, but now this global network needs global management - not national management.
On the specifics on what was said about ICANN, I agree, partly. ICANN in its present form shouldnt live on. Theres a complete lack of direction, and it appears to be bumbling about like it cant decide what to do. I doubt we'll ever quite get over the mess its made.
.
While many people may have legitimate gripes with ICANNs selection of new gTLDs, .kids and .sex were perhaps the two most controversial TLDs you could try for.
US Congress discussing .kids.us is a much more sensible approach, as it limits the scope. The US government already to a great extent has determined what is suitable for kids in the US through various regulation, and setting criteria for a .kids.us may thus be a lot easier than setting criteria for a global ".kids" where whats acceptable in one country would be considered illegal pornography in another.
(ObDisclaimer: I'm co-founded GNR, the company who got .name)
It's a wonder he even got the position with an attitude like this:
"That's why I want to look at the records, to find out where the money goes. Why does it take $2.4 million (47 applicants paid $50,000 each) to evaluate seven top-level domains?"
It goes against all the immorral business practices that companies get sucked into.
It's amaizing that a non profit organization can have a budget that's so high, and the people that they represent get representation like Auerbach who has the integrity to ask a question like "...Why does it take $2.4 million..."
I believe that this is a clear case of public interest being served sloppy seconds from a management commitee that pays out sallarries to anywhere from 50 to a 100 people supposedly working to do something that like everybody says, should take less than 20.
Non profit company = not for profit.
somehow with the numbers there talking about, ie 23 million, I think someone is making some nice paychecks.
As he says here:
"What kinds of alternatives are you offering? How do you think some of the problems, particularly with fraud, should be fixed?
First, get rid of management. Here are people whose primary belief is that elections will never
work, therefore they don't try. There's a lack of will here. Also, we don't have to have electronic elections. We can have good old paper elections, the kind that work for all kinds of nonprofits all over the world. You send people an envelope, they fill out the paper and send it back.
Is that so hard? Is that so extensive?
Why do you think these kinds of things aren't being considered?
Because it gets in their way of building an empire."
A non profit empire run by people who control the worlds access (in some ways) to the internet.
"And that's what ICANN is turning into -- bureaucracy upon bureaucracy."
And one last comment:
"As far as finances go, the thing is just naive. Here he is asking governments to pay. Who in the U.S. has been the most vociferous opponent to ICANN at the federal level? Congress. If anybody at ICANN would bother to read something simple, like the U.S. Constitution, they'd recognize that funds have to be approved by Congress; the executive branch doesn't print money and spend it. If someone's going to pay ICANN, it's going to have to be passed by Congress. And that certainly gives Congress a much stronger level to exert control.
And how are you going to get governments to agree? Governments are required, under the Lynn plan, to gather into clubs and select someone. But now, according to a recent clarification, they have to select from a list prepared by this council -- and then pay for the privilege."
Pay for the privilege?!
A non profit organization requiring people to pay for the right to have participation in the proceeding that the non profit organization was made for?
It just strikes me as odd that these people got away with anything like this for as long as they did, but I can understand with the current and past administration. Also without slashdot and other websited like them I'd be totally in the dark about these things, they're not in the news or the local paper. It seems like people are just ending over for anything these days.
I'm totally proud of Auerbach and his ability to cut to the chase. SHOW HIM THE MONEY!
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Interesting....
they call for an immediate transfer to an existing non-profit organation. Who would they like this to be then???
Themselves?
On the face of it it appears that the only forum is ICANN itself and baring that (for obvious reasons) all u have left is the UN! The only other power player in this is really IAB/ISOC/IETF - but this forum has no "jurisdiction" over ICANN and can't be seen as neutral.
The only way to deal with this is for a large majority of the people that support ICANN at the grass roots to set up a consensual forum not controlled by the current ICANN leadership to thrash out a solution - subsequently seeking the support of groups such as IAB and so forth (now we know what yahoo groups are useful for...). Without this non-body will be able to claim any consensus.
I think the fundamental contribution made by this article stands though - do this "outside" ICANN. Once consensus builds this forum should be able to dictate terms to ICANN and/or simply replace it. Not easy but possible if the right leading figures emerge.
.sig
That sounds to me an exact description of the International Working Party on the White Paper, the consultation process which led to the setting up of ICANN (and, which, incidentally, I took part in in Geneva).
What worries me is that if we do the whole thing again in the same way,
It's a shame Jon Postel went and died on us; we moaned enough about him during his lifetime, but he died this job far better than ICANN have. Short of finding another individual as unmoved by commercial pressures, and as essentially fair minded as Jon was, we are stuck with a bunch of extremely wealthy conflicting vested interests, and a lot of hungry looking lawyers. The horizon to windward looks stormy.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I really don't understand the objections to '.kids' and '.sex'. Why does somebody need to set standards? Few who are in the sex business have any incentive to register under '.kids', and vice-versa.
Sure there will be a few exceptions. There are always a few idiots. But so what? The system doesn't need to be infallible, just reasonable.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
DNS only needs a little bit of administration and conflict arbitration ... thats it, needs a small organization. ICANN doesnt need direction, it just needs to do that small job. They cannot accept they just have to do the job they have been given and try to invent more work to grow their organization, thats the only problem.
Noone needs to define what the internet entails, it is what it is. It worked when the internet just popped up, and it still works.
Why do we need to have some central group of people telling us what hints file we have to put in our DNS servers? Why do we need to have some central group of people deciding what TLDs go into some group of root servers?
The simple solution also lets the market decide about what TLDs survive, and what TLDs fail. Everyone who runs a DNS server gets to create their own root zone file, and put in whatever TLDs they want (I do recommend all the 2-letter national TLDs). They can even point them to whatever servers they want or even run some themselves for own, or their customers. Or they can just outsource it to whoever they want to let decide it for them.
A little chaos is a good thing. It's called competition. We don't all get our food from the same place. We don't all get our computers from the same place. Why do TLDs have to be any different. Sure, we might want to have the same TLD as someone else, and if so, then we can choose to do that. So we end up with people peddling root zone files. It's your choice.
And if you don't have a DNS server, you can simply use whatever want you want to (if they permit it). And an ISP can ever set up more than one if they have varying issues to give customers more choice about.
The big advantage I see to this is that it avoids a lot of the legal wars going on now over ownership of domains, and whether domains are subject to trademark rules, and such. Make it totally open there's no longer a target to sue.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I heartily endorse the PFIR position that ICANN must be dissolved and its work placed into the hands of a capable temporary steward. What should happen beyond that is a big question. But there's no question that ICANN has lost any and all respect from netizens from around the world due to their ongoing abject stupidity.
And despite my major disagreement with Auerbach over his anti-small business, pro confusion idea of unlimited gTLD's (really a matter of democratic contention), I also endorse his lawsuit to shine the light on ICANN's finances. He has a clear right under the law to inspect these records at any time in an unfettered manner. If ICANN is to increase its budget ten-fold, then obviously the board needs to completely understand how money was being spent previously. In addition, I heartily agree with Auerbach's vivid descriptions of ICANN's empire-building management and limp-wristed board (Auerbach an exception, of course).
As is expected coming from the director of Democracy 2.0, I have to go well beyond Auerbach's strong concerns about Lynn's idea to remove any representative aspects of ICANN. Anything short of having a global direct democracy deciding Internet infrastructural policy is unacceptable. Obviously, how this deliberative/decisionmaking system would be set up is chock full of monster details that no one person or small group can handle.
I propose an open process for developing a constitution/charter for the substitute organization. This could be an open source document that's developed with wide participation using a tool like D3E (Digital Document Discourse Environment). This charter would define how all the parties involved with the Internet would come together (both online and offline) to effectively develop Internet policies. To start off, I also propose that a committee of roundly acceptable participants (perhaps those of the PFIR) craft the rough draft of this charter and act as the primary author through its initial stages. Later (perhaps within a year or so), the charter would be opened to democratic alteration via processes that the charter itself outlines.
Once the charter has been completed and democratically approved, the temporary steward would then hand over control to the managing organization that would be outlined in the charter. Then, all policy issues (perhaps except the overly technical ones) would be resolved via public discourse, deliberation and decision via democratic means.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist