Slashdot Mirror
US Govt Wants to Control ICANN?
blankmange writes "ZDNet is covering a new piece of legislation that may be introduced by Sen. Conrad Burns that would give the US government more control of ICANN - the independent corporation that controls the domain-naming system of the internet. 'In a statement released two days before a Senate subcommittee is scheduled to hold hearings on the global body, Burns said the change was necessary because ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.'"
It isn't as if they could fuck it up more than it already is.
Michael Loves Me!
ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.
Kind of like... the government??
I have been pwned because my
ok, we all realise that ICANN needs to be changed, but the US government? HELL NO. It would make things worse. Instead ICANN should be revised into a democratic body of some sort. It would be difficult to set up, but necciasary. The ISPs, internet users, and buisnesses would all have to be fairly represented. Any ideas?
The US government should not control ICANN, it would be dumped into the FCC and regulated to hell. The internet would become even more difficult to use. Its already hard enough to start a small local ISP, what else will this screw up?
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
How long will it be before ICANN are forced to release the .bush TLD?
"ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.'" That sounds like Microsoft. Why don't they introduce a bill to limit their powers?????
"ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups."
So the government can take this over so they can exceeded their authority, not operate in an open fashion, be dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups. This sounds like the government is just jealous that another entity has similar incompetence.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
"Dozens of other governments have charged ICANN with being too dominated by U.S. interests"
So the solution is to put it under control of the US government. Does this sound as dumb to everyone else as it does to me?
When I hear stuff like this, I start to wonder what the real motivations are...
how much is Micro$ofty paying for this one? i assume its part of their plot for world domination, but i could be wrong.
I want 2D games back.
a majority also post as anonymous cuz they don't know the truth. It depends on who you talk to about Bush being voted for more...the popular vote in most areas said that more people voted for Gore. The people don't matter anyway, its called: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Sadly, our founding fathers thought we were too stupid to deal with politics.
This is almost certianly true, but I have serious doubts that the US government is more accountable, more open, or less likely to exceed its authority (though if you give your self enough authority then its hard to exceed it).
ICANN is more evil than the Government. Granted it would be better if it was transfered to an international body to better reflect the international community that the Internet has become, but the US government is certainly a step in the right direction. Our government is supposedly of, by, and for the people. ICANN doesn't have such obligations. God I hate them.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
This is a real dilemma. Consider that all the claims the US government makes about ICANN are correct: they're unaccountable, monopolistic, and they certainly don't run things the way they were supposed to. Almost everybody in the /. community can agree that ICANN needs to be reined in.
The US government used to do this job, and back then, it was fine. But of course then the internet was a small space for researchers and academics to exchange ideas.
Our current administration is authoritarian and too concerned about what's moral, correct, and in the best interest of scaring the populace. Free speech == bad in the eyes of the Bush regime.
Add to that the fact that the internet is now worldwide, and the US shouldn't be patrolling the world (though they do it in physical space already - cyber space is a small leap), and it puts us all in a real dilemma.
I guess the real question is, with which stick would you rather be beaten?
I did not design this game/I did not name the stakes/I just happen to like apples/And I am not afraid of snakes-AniD
Talk about coming full circle. ICANN was spun off of the U.S. government so it could be more independant and directly accountable to the Internet's user base; now the latter reason is being used to confiscate ICANN's independance.
I think we of the Internet community have been reminded of a tragedy of human existance... Where you have idealism, you have politics. In trying to de-politicize ICANN, it ended up being an excessively political body instead.
ObTroll: I'm now waiting for the protests from the UN, China, et al, that the U.S. is trying to exercise soverignty over the 'Net. (And the current U.S. administration using the War On Terror(TM) as the justification for doing so.)
Those who complain about affect & effect on
dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.
Any chance that Big Money, Inc. hasn't gotten what they thought they bought with ICANN and is instead deciding that its money goes a lot farther with the Government instead?
When the US Govt. gave up what power they had over the domain system, it went to shit. Netsol messed it up, ICANN is messing it up even worse.
I say let the NSF do it again.
And look - the Electoral College saved all you idiots from actually getting Gore into office - so I guess our founding fathers were right...
I'm sure the gov't will do for ICANN what they did for Amtrack.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
ICANN may be an international body, but much of their authority came courtesy of the US government. It would take a major consensus from virtually all ISP's (in the US and the rest of the world as well) to allow a different body to take control of DNS. Since ICANN's authority came via the US government, theoretically it can be taken away as well. Given the way ICANN operates, that may not be a Bad Thing. It might be nice to have a "do-over" with ICANN and try and get it right this time.
Of course, if Jon Postel hadn't passed on far before his time, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
One interesting point in the article: the GAO rep said that domain name registration had fallen from about $50 to $10 due to ICANN. Check me if I'm wrong here, but I very clearly remember that when NSI started charging for domain names (I also still remember when they were free) they charged $35/year. Not $50. And that's still the price from them today (though they offer longer-term discounts) - other registrars are free to charge what they want and generally undercut NSI.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I don't know about anybody else, but as a person from a country other than the US, I don't like this idea one bit.
Sure, ICANN isn't doing the greatest job, but at least they are theoreticaly an open, international organization that I could effect somehow.
If the US government takes it over, then all users outside of the US would get no say, unless we were aloud to vote in US elections somehow. Also, is this legal to do, or is there a case to be made in international court based on the fact the ICANN and the internet are not limited to the US?
They are at least trying to do that for the right reasons.
Whether that will turn out to translate to right action we will have to wait and see.
After all, the french and russian revolutions were done for the most right reasons imaginable, and they both ended with fanatical, mass-murdering dictator states trying to take over the world.
Well, let's see where this one goes. I would hope they would put a LOT of thought into this before they put ICANN under the government umbrella, though. I'd like to think they would just somehow force ICANN to be more accountable to internet users worldwide.
That's just ridiculous.
The Internet was designed to be an open system.
Putting a big part of it like ICANN under the control of the government of just one country is wrong.
The US govenment, or the government of any country, should not have exclusive jurisdiction over the Internet.
Why is the US government taking it upon itself to regulate such things? The Internet is not the property of the United States.
It belongs to the entire world, and it should be operated at the very least by the entire international community.
The DNS problem is a simple one to solve.
There are two choices.
1) We are going to keep adding TLDs.
2) We are NOT going to keep adding TLDs.
Period.
The only other time to change a TLD is if the geopolitical world changes, and we need more (or less) cctlds.
Other than that, maintain the root servers, and leave it the hell alone.
It seems just a bit odd, though, that a government that spent roughtly 45 years in a hostle stalemate with the forces of communism (more if you count minor US intervention during the Russian Civil War) should go about nationalizing any sort of independant business. Now, change can be good, but given the age of some of the senators, it still seems unnervingly like doublethink.
Are you sure you want Dubya in charge of anything to do with numbers?
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
The whole paranoid big brother thing does not scare me. Fortunately (and sometimes unfortunately), the government is just not efficient enough to really be all that ominous.
Can I bum a sig?
This all has to happen during this session, which only has 50 working days left, and which has much else (such as the Department of Homeland Security) on its plate.
Best Slashdot Co
Sen. Burns is ... a Socialist???
It seems to me that this is an unnecessary grasp for power. The article didn't mention that there were any specific reforms in mind, just that ICANN wasn't doing a good job. The US government should be delegating, NOT taking over organizations just because they have some influence on the internet. I think the government should work with the group already in place and lobby for specific changes in the way ICANN operates, rather than take the organization over and waste more of the taxpayers' money providing a service to the community that is already being provided (and probably won't be improved by intervention).
I do not see why the US should control this, do they think they own the World?
When will you realize that you're just another brick in the wall?
C. Montgomery Burns???????? Conrad??? Excellent Smithers!!!! Now we can find out which state Springfield is in!
Everyone knows ICANN is scum. See also this and this.
And of course the UDRP is dreadful.
However, this proposal reads to me less like a solution to ICANN's well documented track records of cronyism and broken promises, and more like a US powergrab, orchestrated by Republicans who oppose international institutions on principle - a position which has certain merits but which ought to be promoted honestly. Of course, I may be jumping to conclusions since no specifics of the bill are yet available.
For all u eurotrash: In the US, instead of Eurosceptics, we have Republicans, who, instead of hating the EU, hate the UN. American leftists generally support the UN and oppose the WTO. We don't have an international umbrella organisation for both ends of the political spectrum to despise (unless you count the federal guvmint.)
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
You do all realize that this action was most likely started because some big-time lobbyists down at the capitol asked (read: paid) some senators to start this. Most likely big business wants more freedom to do as the please in taking away 'copyrighted' domains (read: microsoftsux.com is going bye bye) among other things.
All for the greater good of the public (copyright doubleplus good!)
I don't really mind double posts on
Burns said the change was necessary because ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.
Perfect. So when the government takes over, it still won't be accountable to internet users, it will be slightly accountable to the businesses that contribute the most, and it will be at the whim of the special interest groups. This is just what the internet needs.
~ now you know
(n/t)
people seem to forget that the US is becoming a fairly small portion of Internet users. but some folks in Congress think that we own the Internet.
if ICANN is corrupt we can at least take some comfort in realizing that it has very little power. I wish we could say the same about the US government, which is corrupt but has tremendous power to do harm.
..to anyone so the government should take over. Because as we all know, Big Brother is much, much more accountable to the individual than any sort of corporation.
If you can't see the logic in that, you must have your eyes open.
Posting as directed.
Great! Just what we need. The Govt and it's beauracracy and politics. How about just slapping ICANN around a bit, so they get their act together.
I'd rather see the Amish in control of ICANN
stand the idea of the us government in control of ICANN. Censorship would rampant with mom & pop out to make it a morally healthy place for their children. if anyone is taking over, have it be the UN or something.....
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
100 years ago, the British government had control of everything.. it's nothing new.
:)
But this can only be good from a US citizen's point of view.
Don't forget the rest of the (western at least) world.
You were expecting a sig?
Mind you in the case of the ICANN, it means the control on the *whole* system, not a signle country oriented domain namely : .za.
Quetion : How quick do you think other country would react to a "kidnapping" from ICANN by the US ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
While I do believe the gov't can do a better job than ICANN, once the gov't gets control, I doubt an autonomous group will ever again be able to control DNS registration, ever again. ICANN is flawed, but I would rather see ICANN torched from the ground up and rebuilt again on the original democratic principals it was founded than surrender (almost surely permanently) the whole thing to the US.
Well, ICANN does need to be reigned in. Unfortunately giving the government control is the wrong solution, as it will just make it more of a political tool. Perhaps they should just break up the current board and force a permanent democratic election process for board memebers. Of course, I don't know if it is within the power of the government to do so.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
I've had enough of you whiners and complainers. ICANN operates in a fair and free fashion. Their meeting are open to the public.
Just because you missed their last meeting in Ghana, doesn't mean it's not too late catch the bus over to Romania.
I understand that the next meeting will be on the dark side of the Moon. They don't want the pale Lunarians feeling left out of the loop.
evanchik.net
They're only trying to maximize US control of the internet. If you consider the history of the current administration on international matters, you could argue that they certainly do not represent the world opinion any more than the ICANN does.
.com, .net and .org domains.
If we really want a good ICANN, reform UN and then put ICANN under their control. That way, the rest of us won't be f*cked if the next administration decides only US Citizens can control
Stop the brainwash
What about the rest of us outside the US? We have a stake in it too.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
The US is operating well within its rights in this situation. It's a simple case of eminent domain... Unlike other sigs, I can speak with an English accent!
Yes, I know it is a US based corporation that runs the domains so it won't make much of a difference to us. It's the idea that a paranoid and vengeful world power would have total control on the administration of domain names, and the ability to remove from the world wide web any site it finds 'controversial'. Goodbye to free speech (and don't think the American's wouldn't do it). If the US wasn't so eager to enforce it's moral and political values on the world I wouldn't be so concerned. But alas, I look at the alternatives and find little peace of mind in them. Do we allow each country to administer their own domains? That would open a pandora's box (god I hate being cliched) that I wouldn't want to consider. Oh well.. no stopping the juggernaut, only time will tell.
No, it had more to do with the fact that it took weeks/months for the election results to be tallied and sent back to DC. The electoral college was supposed to create a representation of outlying areas in the election. It's now completely outdated, considering voting machines could be connected to a central server via 'TEH INTARNET' and allow us to check out a neat little website which gives you the results on the fly.
One day we will be able to vote from home on the internet... Just like on Slashdot....
Linux is dead.
LU
Sadly, our founding fathers thought we were too stupid to deal with politics.
What's sad is your belief in mob rule. But you read slashdot, where group think is encouraged, so it's not surprising.
The electoral college gives a larger voice to citizens of small states that would otherwise be left out of the election process. When one group of people is allowed to "democratically" select what another does, you get slavery, reconstruction, and nuclear wast dumps in Nevada.
I don't care too much about that, but will you be eating my log again tonight?
Shhh... I'm hunting karma.
I have been pwned because my
The reason that people fear and dislike the government is because the government doesn't care about the implications of what they do. Remember, this is the government that passed the DMCA, is behind the FCC on the broadband mess, and is trying to pass the SSSCA. It is obvious that the government (1) Does not have any idea about technology and the internet (as previously stated) or (2) they don't care and they are looking for short term power and regulation. ICANN *may be* operating outside of its authority, but at least they are not the caniving senators who are trying to pass legislation inhibiting the growth of technology. As for trusting the government more than companies any day of the week , how about trusting neither and using intellect to figure out what in the world is going on.
Me: We need to look at expanding and upgrading our infastructure. Boss: Wart is dar interweb? Write me a report.
"...I live in an area filled with liberal idiots who think the government owes them something." You think they don't? What the hell do you pay taxes for then? You bet they owe you something. Quite a lot in fact.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
I agree with the idea that no corporation (even a non-profit one) should not control such vital part of the internet infrastructure. I also don't thing any one nation should either. Instead some formal internation/global body should handle it.
Yes, and No.
.com, you have authority to hand out names below that. Same for every single other domain.
Without central control, where is the guarantee that someone isn't hijacking your namespace.
Why is central control a problem?
And keep in mind, every single individual decides how they want to peform dns resolution. Either by choosing which nameservers to use, or if you are a nameserver, by choosing which root servers to use.
The only reason DNS works now is because the vast majority of people use the same root servers.
I think the real question, though, is why is central control bad? What is it that we would like to see in the DNS system that icann won't do now?
Our real problem is that DNS became the way to find web pages. That's not what it was designed for. It was designed as distributed, heirarchial system. You register a
The idea was to give your organisation or network a name, and then use that heirarchy to organise all your resources.
My point is, the only reason it's such a big deal is because of the Web.
What we really need is a distributed lookup service that is more effective, and hence, more desireable, than using dns.
-1 Offtopic
My disappointment isn't because of the electoral college, or whether the popular vote chose one man over another.. No, it was watching both candidates claiming that they "won" without caring about the people *or* the system they were in. Inaguration was months away, and they had plenty of time to resolve the situation. It's not as if the rules are difficult. Instead, they started legal action against each other. That's when I lost faith not in the system, but in the people running it. I knew they were all wankers before, but the last election fiasco was over the top.
As for the Electoral College thing, that could have been eliminated by precedence if only GWB had said "I understand that the Electoral College has chosen me, but I choose to honor the will of the people. I can not accept this honor in good conscience and will be stepping down from the race." After that, the EC would still be there, but any succeeding president would have to consider following suit (in the event popular vote/EC mismatch) or lose face. (It also probably would have gotten GWB elected in a landslide 4 years later)
Next Week..
The US government and remaining states have finally closed the MS antitrust case. Most of the deal was sealed but information was leaked that MS will now control much of the internet domain name space. One senator was quoted as saying "Now the Internet will be run by a true innovator"
In two weeks..
Open source and GPL advocates are suffering from strange unexplained outages. Redhat, Slashdot, Sourceforge and other popular sites have been unreachable for days. ICANN/MS/SANS stated "Unsecured software, also known as GPL, is more then likely the cause of their problems".
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Of course, one could say that the good ol' US of A "exceed[s] its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, [small] businesses and other key interest groups." I'm definitely not crazy about ICANN, but the suggstion that "The U.S. needs to ensure ICANN operates with the same sort of internal processes as in any other federal agency" makes me shudder. That's a terrible thing to wish on an organization, and is clearly no improvement. But the emphasis in the ZDNet article on security issues makes me wonder if this is a play by the US to localize more root servers, thus making legislation with broad constraits on previously international networks viable. Conspiritorial? Well, it's hard to regulate network traffic that doesn't stay within your physical jurisdiction, so you've either got to undermine international law or re-localize that traffic.
There are two problems with this post:
First off the popular vote `in most areas' didn't go for Gore, or he would have had more electoral votes. The total popular vote was very slightly more for Gore than for Bush, but this was because some of the very populous states, such as California went for Gore.
And this brings us to the actual reason for the Electoral College, which is very different from what you suggest in your post. The founders were quite rightly worried that a few large states would be able to control federal elections in such a way that smaller states would have no voice at all, so they reached a compromise. The existence of the Electoral College requires that a presidential candidate build a broad base of support accross a range of states, thus ensuring that he better represents the entire nation.
In the absence of the Electoral College, no presidential candidate would ever have incentive to listen to any but a few of the largest states -- and would be much more the president of New Yorkifornia than of the United States.
Dubious, and I don't mean George.
Through law, one way or another there is government control (ours or someone else's govt.) of just about everything, now.
What we need are some serious lawsuits to clarify the rules or non rules.
I for one want to go back to some rules that should never have been changed and another that should have always been.
Rule one - First come first served.
The heck with who owns a copyright or trademark, this is a seperate space.
You want it, get in line, get in line early, if you miss out try to buy it, if you can't buy it, rent it or come up with something else.
Rule two - One Domain name per customer.
dove.unilever.com is just fine, the space for dove.com should belong to someone else.
'www.' should be depricated.
Rule three - The name must be in active use.
The lack of this rule has created squaters, and ties directly into the previous two rules.
Somebody had the rules system pretty close to right in the begining, too bad they wrecked it.
And last the rule that never was, but should have been.
You should register once, only once.
Renewal is a form of extortion at worst, taxation at best, and really creates a situation in which the root registrar is the actual owner.
This is a public database, registration fees are understandable, but after it is registered, administration is trivial and should be financed by the folks who are pulling daily feeds for the BIND servers that are actually routing it commercially.
Off the soapbox.
But the Dems are the ones who have been taking money from Di$ney and co. That means that they will likely jump at this chance. Imagine an internet controlled by media companies, no publishing or recording of your own thank you, your goal is to consume, consume, consume...
Granted it may not be this obvious but keep in mind that the Senate is Fritz's domain.
You make some good points, and as far as any american entities are concerned I agree with you. However, for the original reason ICANN took over it's current duties for the Gov't was to encourage a more open and GLOBAL community to be supported in a globally fair manner. The american gov't simply assuming control again could very well leave disputes from foreign interests at the bottom of the priority barrel. As corrupt as private business can be, it generally is globally indiscriminate in it's bias's. Where as a gov't based org is not.
This is a *real* dilemma. I mean really. Think about it. Really. Consider that all the claims the US government makes about ICANN are correct: they're unaccountable, monopolistic, and they certainly don't run things the way they were supposed to. Almost everybody in the /. community can agree that ICANN needs to be reined in. Really.
The US government used to do this job, and back then, it was fine. Really. But of course then the internet was a small space for researchers and academics to exchange ideas.
Our current administration is authoritarian and too concerned about what's moral, correct, and in the best interest of scaring the populace. Free speech == bad in the eyes of the Bush regime.
Add to that the fact that the internet is now *reall* worldwide, and the US shouldn't be patrolling the world (though they do it in physical space already - cyber space is a small leap), and it puts us all in a real dilemma.
I guess the *real* question is, with which stick would you rather be beaten? Mine...or theirs?
what ever the problems with the ICANN, and from what we hear there are many, any move by the US government to take on more control is going to mean that we move into the bizzare situation were the us government has direct influence over an international body.
I'm sure that may well lead to a more open operation - but the accountability will be to the US government and population rather than the internet population. Surely we need to look to more democratisation of ICANN as a more sensible way forward.
I think the key here is "businesses and other key interest groups". In other words, the government doesn't get any kickbacks because they don't have any control over what ICANN does. Seriously, if the government had the "internet users" interests at heart, MS wouldn't be in the position it is in now, and they would have come down on them like a ton of bricks. And arguing that the government is more/less corrupt than businesses is like shopping for dildos - you aren't looking for the one that feels the best, you are looking for the one that hurts the least.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
This is the US Govt's first step toward true uber-government and world domination...
1) Take over ICANN
2) ???
3) Profit!
The New Wazoo
It had to be said!
Fair enough ICANN isn't working (properly.) But why should the US government get all the fun. Why no Japan or GB or Somalia. Like space, the internett is nobodys property. The US should leave it alone or alternatively propose an internatialization. (Imagin UNICANN or UNHCWWW.)
Look a monkey!
First of all, why in the 14th Level of Hell (the one with the infinite screeching monkeys) would the rest of the world be happy with the US Government governing the Internet?
See, this is the kind of thing that pisses off the rest of the world. Next thing you know, ICANN's predecessor will be censoring domain names all over the world, in order to "stop the terror" and "protect the children" and "protect American interests". So you'll not only be unable to register Microsoftsucks.com, but Microsoftsucks.uk or Microsoftsucks.tv.
And before someone comes out and says, "Just because the US Government can do it doesn't mean it will", let me give you a little hint: We dont trust the US Goverment. Personally, Al Gore would've made a better job at it than Bush. At least he was technologically savvy. At least he could pronounce "technologically savvy".
Mark my words... the US keeps this up, and sooner or later you're gonna start receiving virtual terrorist attacks or something. Screwing up the Internet for the rest of the world, by the way.
I say let the UN create some sort of Internet Agency with representation from several countries, not just from "american citizens, businesses and special interests".
Sorry about the rant, but it really strikes me as a very, very Bad Idea.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
It's the U.S. government that can't provide anything without screwing up.
if you knead proof, just read the report. that's write, & we're sticking to IT, we're NOT taking IT DOWn when sumbuddy w(h)ines about IT.
It may not be a private corporation, but it thinks it is.
I can boycott corporations, but the closest thing to a boycott of the US gov't is illegal.
The US government is the prime facilitator of most of the things coprorations do that we see as Evil. (DMCA, military action in Guatemala & Nicaragua, Saipan, heck, the amount of time copyrights are good for magically gets longer every time Disnay's copyright in a certain mouse is about to expire.)
History has shown that these limits on the power of the government that you speak of are fungible. Usually, they are only funged a little bit, for example with limitations on free speech w/r/t certain four-letter words in public. Sometimes, they're funged a lot more. For example with the WWII internment camps.
I'm still not convinced that the US government values me as anything other than a contributor to the GDP, in the same way that I know large corporations only care about me as a chump that may have a few loose dollars in his pocket.
As for the laws that limit the gov't, the constitution and laws in this country only hold water because our governing body agrees they do.
Abraham Lincoln blatantly ignored the Constitution and a few other major laws, I'm sure. The gov't can do that just as easily today. At least corporations have a government standing above their heads waiting to put them in their place (or at least make a pathetic attempt to do so) every random interval unit of time or so. That may not be worth two shits in a can, but it's a psychological comfort.
Who's going to stop this abulatory conglomeration of tinker toys and assault rifles we Americans like to pretend is a government if it stretches things too far?
Simplicity can be elegant, but it isn't in your case. Isn't there actual case law (not UDRP) granting copyright holders preferential treatment when it comes to overlapping web site names?
Also, good luck getting "www." deprecated, champ.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Care to elaborate? Can you provide some links?
I have been pwned because my
The current system is getting abused - the TLD's are getting used for pretty much everything other than their original purpose.
.tv happens to resemble television (this in itself speaks volumes about how badly we need new TLD's)
.com, .net, .org, .gov and .edu are for US entities, but now the internet is bigger and a bit more important, there should be a rethink:
ccTLD's should be for entities that actually reside in that country, not because for example
.org was for non-profit organizations
.net was for internet infrastructure
.com was for US companies
I know that
everything should get a 2 letter ccTLD *unless* it's a global entity.
rules on what type of entity is being registered should be strictly enforced:
e.g. slashdot is a (mostly) US centric, for profit organization, so it's assigned slashdot.com.us
a *lot* more 2nd level domains are required - lets start with:
xxx, name, film, music, food, med(ical), tech, fun, sport, etc.
well, you get the idea...
has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable ...oh wait, this *isn't* talking about congress?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
"Burns said the change was necessary because ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.'"
Ok, i may be wrong but isn't that the point of ICANN to NOT cater to any group and to NOT get involved in the politics of the web but to just run the damn thing?
I mean last i checked that was the point of INDEPENDENT.
Just my $.02
"And the heathens with their ways of trickery and deceit shall not prevail over the will of the righteous"
If you think ICANN is doing a good job, look at expired domain names. Verisign still has ultimate control over when expired domain names get releases. You can call Verisign and ask them the policies that govern the release, and they cannot give them to you... simply because they do not exist... They mumble something about how automated it is and they have no control over it. I sat waited for 9 months before they finally released my domain. During this time, I found that I had no recourse to get them to do anything. I contacted the board of directors at ICANN and found out that I was SOL. They told me to sent them a letter, but that there was really nothing I could do. Then, all these companies pop up, offering to grab your domain as soon as it is released... of course, these companies are owned by Verisign. Just another way for them to make money... extortion. I have always wondered why it costs money to register a domain. $35 a year. How much actual work is involved in setting up a domain? Once it is set up, there is no maintenance on their end is there? Back in 1994 when I registered my first domain, I figured there was some fat rich guy sitting in his mansion profitting from all of the domain registrations... I now realize that it is Verisign/NetSol. This has to be the most corrupt company around
ICANN is nothing but a crock. Big corporations, such as Microshaft and AOHell use them to steal legitimately owned domains that were bought by PRIVATE individuals.
What's wrong? The government is tired of hearing about companies lining the pockets of these beaurocratic idiots and giving them the opportunity to think they are somebody important.
Need examples of domains stolen? How about aim.com, aimster.com, aol-beta.com, aol.org?
Do I really need to go on or do we all see the point here?
it does not matter how evil a corporation is. If the government owned the internet, things would be a LOT worse. We cannot let these morons rule our cyber lives as well as real ones! They don't have a clue how to cope with technology and all their departments are woefully behind in every field of CS. If we hand over our domains, no, our way of life to the people who have already made it not worth living, we are silencing OURSELVES! Get up and go to congress and protest! Stop letting them walk all over you just because it's not happening in your living room! The government will NOT use domain names in a proper manner. There will be so much political bullshit wrapped around registering a domain name you'll have to be a republican to have it done this month! Shit, look at the fucking judicial system and tell me you think it's going to be alright. WELL. TELL ME. BISH.
That may have been the reason on record but it really isn't what they were thinking. The real reason they had that instituted was because they knew, same as now, that 90% of the public really has no idea who they are voting for. Most just vote down party lines, or on who "impresses them more on TV". Very few do the work required to actually vote knowing the candidates' track records on the issues. This combined with the fact that news traveled at the pace of a horse's gallop and thus it was hard to get everybody on the same page, was the real reason for the electoral college.
;) ) knows that that relationship has since flip flopped. If there is a war in Delaware on the coast am I going to dodge the draft so I can defend my home, Ohio? No, of course not, but thats what everybodys thinking was back then.
That argument you used about the larger states overpowering the smaller ones is about 100 years old and is not valid in the now. Back then people had an enormous amount of pride in their individual states and very little in the country. Anybody with eyes (who doesn't live in SC
This is a classic case of technology be used as a pawn by a societal structure not prepared for the responsibility.
This is something that affects all internet users/developers and I think it would make sense and is perfectly logical to use the internet itself to collect the opinion necessary to make decisions on these matters. We're forced to deal with spam on a daily basis and there are numerous sites whom have no trouble collecting the opinions of its users, how is it that a internet policy governing group such as this or the government itself can't execute in a similar fasion.
If they really we're interested in fairness and representation wouldn't this make more sense?
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
oh this is cute, for all you non US'ians I am going to give you a three line summary of why my party is the best one and the other are scumbags, remember i am in no way diluting the truth or skewing it for my benifit, i promise i'm doing this just because i want to educate you not because i have my own agenda to push forward
Just say you need to control ICANN because of "terrorism".
This allows the US gov't to do whatever they like these days. "Terrorism". Oh my gosh..
A minimal beaurocracy with responsibility for nothing other than running user supplied referenda on which one internet user gets one vote?
Sure, tricky to administrate, but I'll pick a flawed democracy to a perfect dictatorship any day.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This is probably the first and last time someone will ever argue that giving louder voices to smaller states, such as South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, in preference to heavily populated states, like New York and Massachessets, is what lead the US to abolish slavery.
You're a nut. Get over it.
Why don't we just put 'Uncle Sam' on high then everyone will be safe and all good things will follow right? After all the goverenment is so good at everything else it does right? "The government that governs best, governs least."
That sounds nice, and things perhaps work out that way now, but that's not what they were shooting for.
The folks who wrote up the constitution were elitists who were deathly afraid (some might say rightly so) of the "mob-rule" mentality that might set in with a straight democracy. The idea behind the electoral colledge system was that states would appoint their "leading citizens" (in a way left up to the state governments, often by fiat) who would gather and jointly pick a president. It was figured that most of the time candidates would be regional (no mass media back in the 18th century), so no one candidate would get the majority, and it would be thrown into the sentate. Electors were not meant to be directly elected by a state's people. It took a constitutional ammendment to change that.
The senate was also not meant to be a directly elected body, and was to be appointed by the states (however they felt like doing it) from among the state's "wisest men".
Also realise that even for states that had direct elections for all this stuff, they usually restricted the vote to adult white males who owned land initially. If you lived in an apartment, you weren't considered responsible enough to get a vote.
The system we have in the US now is the result of slow and contunial evolution, not some divinely inspired document.
...that "smaller government" that the Republicans are always spouting on about.
You know, how they all want to get the government "off our backs" or "out of our hair."
While I disagree with your characterization of the reasons for the electoral college, this is an irrelevancy at any rate -- independence of electors has not existed in fact for almost a century. (I would suggest you look into the discussions of the matter in the Federalist Papers, if you want to see what the Founders themselves said on the matter, though).
As for the small states argument, it's a simple matter of fact that were voting strictly proportionate, a small number of coastal states would have a massively disproportionate role in presidential elections, while small states would likely never be visited at all.
Evil monopoly or stupid gov't. Sigh.
The US government is the only reason you have, or have even heard of free speech.
A net without US script kiddies, self-important housewives, the NRA, the US arms of the MPAA and RIAA spamming P2P networks... Mmmm. :)
While I disagree with your characterization of the Founders intentions (and I would argue that reading what they actually said and wrote on the matter backs up my view), this is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Even if we agree that this is why an electoral college was instituted, this only explains the indirect-election aspect of such an institution. It tells us nothing about why the Founders chose to make representation in such an institution not strictly proportional -- and, as I said, the reason for this was quite explicitly to address the large-state problem. At any rate, the indirect-election aspect of the EC no longer exists in practice.
I'm a little more concerned about your last sentence though.
Certainly, it is the case that the Constitution has evolved, through the mechanism of adoption of Constitutional Ammendments, which was specifically provided for by the founders. But this evolution neither serves as an indictment of the original document (which, after all, is what made such Ammendments possible), nor justifies the attempts by some to change the clear meaning of the Constitution without ammending it, such as in the lacking enforcement of the second, ninth, and tenth ammendments.
businesses... bad greedy senator, bad!
Stupid sig of the week: Perl Hackers DIIMTOW
Does it really matter what happens to ICANN? It already has zero cred. It already has failed to do the positive things that were hoped for from it. It is also deeply questionable whether, if ICANN issued a controversial order on a subject, whether Verisign or anybody else would pay much attention. E.g., it's questionable how much harm they could do.
I guess we did see ICANN's opinion seem to matter just yesterday. But that is because they have chosen to do nothing, and because the .za Namespace guy has built his own credibility in the local community.
So, does any of this actually matter?
As far as independence from the US gov't, I think that is a dead issue, too (yet another reason nobody trusts them). ICANN is increasingly a creature of K Street.
From that POV, maybe legislation can't make things worse. I think Burns is probably trying to be helpful, but since it requires a serious inet-weenie to understand what a vital ICANN could do, one has to have low expectations here.
The US government created the internet through the US military and paid for it's invention. The US government is in turn controlled by us, or at least it is controlled by the non-lazy mofo's who do something about it. So please stop your whining and complaining about how washington will screw this up.. their batting a pretty good game so far from where i'm seated.
-- "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Nope, just trying to get in the the plus range of karma, so I can just auger it back down to negative again.
Michael Loves Me!
Were talking about a government here that instigated the creation of orgs like the World Bank, the United Nations, etc. etc.
Somebody has to run the domain system.. if it isn't the US Government, how bout China then? would that make all you anti-gov freaks happy?
I think out of all the governmental systems in the world, the US Government is best suited to handle deciding how this system is managed.
-- "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Not much more to say, I trust their government much more than the US. ICANN needs to be liquidated, though I just wish it were a free country taking over it not some country like Iraq or the US.
s/governemt/government/
We went through some prebid planning. It didn't look profitable enough. The contract only supported about five to ten people. In retrospect, no-bid was a good decision; the Internet boom was a decade in the future.
This is idiotic on too many levels to bother enumerating, but primarily it favors the same domain squatters you want to rub out.
Rule two - One Domain name per customer. dove.unilever.com is just fine, the space for dove.com should belong to someone else. 'www.' should be depricated.
Also makes no sense. This wouldn't cut out domain squatters - you could create a corporate entity basically for free in some offshore country and assign domain ownership to it.
Rule three - The name must be in active use. The lack of this rule has created squaters, and ties directly into the previous two rules.
That one I agree with, though obviously it has limits too.
It's kind of disingenous to say "The U.S. government wants X" when one senator has expressed interest in introducing a bill that says X. If the Secretary of Commerce came out and said X, then that means "The U.S. government wants X." But congresspersons introduce legislation all the time, and to take the opinion of one of them as the creed of the entire government is a bit innacurate.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Eh.. I think you're wrong on the matter that large states vs. small states is no longer an issue. It was this same principle that established our 2 branches of legislature. With all the pork barrel projects tossed into every conceivable piece of legislation do you think Delaware has the same leverage as California? Same idea with the electoral college. Our federal government is supposed to try to balance the power b/w the states. In the case of Bush vs. Gore it seemed to be an issue of Rural vs. Pouplous states (an oversimplification of course)
That is what ICANN was supposed to do, but it's a simple fact that they elected only 5 board members instead of 9 as originally agreed. They have subsequently disbanded elections and put in place a "nomination" process which concentrates power in the hands of the original rules.
Similar to the common stories of democracy failing to establish itself in small countries, the original rulers have made some abuses of power. They've played favorites, made arbitrary spending decisions (even blocked inquires from an elected board member for spending records), and they've shown a lack of principle regarding the rights of citizens to whom they should be accountable (witness the unfair domain name dispute policy).
Comments that "the USA does not own the internet" will abound... but ICANN, like a former territory, was given its authority by the US, with a very clear charter that clearly called for a transition to democratically elected officials to make the decisions. Had they followed their charter, had they ernestly held elections, had the original board members stepped down as they had originally agreed, there would be much more tolerance for some bad decisions.
But that's not the case here. Unelected interim officials held on to their power and disbanded elections. Abuses have been made by unelected ICANN board members who do not deserve the power they have improperly siezed for themselves. That's a much different situation that poor decisions on the part of elected officials who should have felt accountable to their constituants who will re-elect them.
Like a developing nation where the interim rulers siezed power and refused to establish democracy as originally chartered, someone needs to step in. The US was both the country that originally granted ICANN its authority, and the US has the clout to demand ICANN's restructing.
This abuse of power and refusal to transistion to democracy are inexcusable. The US would never tolerate it in a former territory (where there's an economic impact on the US at least), and there's no reason that ICANN should be treated any differently.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Why not dish out TLD's by country (move American .com's to .com.us or something) and then just have the individual countries handle dishing out the domains? Then move ICANN to the UN or any other international organization.
AND/OR use relative addressing. This could be odd to implement.. but the idea is the same as using a telephone. If you're within the UK then blah.com will take you to blah.com.uk. It's no different then how we have to type out blah.co.uk from the US anyway.
It says nothing about that, because it isn't a particularly interesting issue. All they did was give each state the same number of electors as they have congressmen. Anything else would have required redoing the painful compromise worked out for congressional representation. They didn't really care about opening that can of worms, because they thought elections would usually end up in the house (there's an extra stipulation that there will be only 1 vote per state in House elections).
My problem with your posts is that you seem to think the system is working now according to its original design, and thus the conceptions of the designers in this matter are important. This is complete bunk. The electoral college system of today doesn't even remotely resemble what they envisioned. A good discussion of how it has changed over the years is available on the Federal Election Commission's website. This is incidentally a great place to point people who think the wierdities of the last election were somehow unprecidented.
I'm not saying I think its a bad system. I'm just saying that it is significantly different than the one the original constitutional authors thought they were giving us.
I'd prefer to see a UN based thing, but the fact is, hey, the US pretty much started the 'net. No, the US can no longer control it, but kicking the crap out of ICANN would help everyone.
As for comparing the scheming of politicians to the scheming of ICANN.. Politicians tend to scheme for power. Corporations, money. Power fails when the ruled are crushed. Money still comes in when the consumer is crushed.
To sum it up: The US government could surely fsck this up, but nowhere near as bad as ICANN can and is fscking it up.
I will never understand why people fear/dislike their government more than private companies who never even have to let you know anything strange is going on unless they get caught.
Eminent domain.
The government has the exclusive power to confiscate (for "fair compensation") property for whatever reason. Now, I'm sure you'd love to believe (as you say you do) that when the government does take something, it's all for an important purpose (aka public works...roads / utilities / etc.). Not always is that the case.
About five years ago, my college wanted to build a couple extra residental buildings for the campus, but some "old houses" stood in the way. The college asked the city to exercise their right to buy out those properties. Residents complained, because of course it would lower the property value of the neighborhood. So, the residents were heard, but the college still got the land. Why? The mayor was also dean of the college.
Another good example can be found here. Nissan Automotive bought out the Mississippi Legislature to get a law passed that allowed them to take whatever land they chose to have (and disregard the land's real value).
My point is this: I don't want a governing body who can be bought out to control the internet. I'm sure someone is going to pipe in and say that "Domain names aren't physical property...the government can't exercise eminent domain!" Anyone who wishes to say such a thing apparently doesn't realize that until a law is on the books that says the government can't, the government will.
We want ICANN to act like a decent international regulatory body. Having it act no more evil than ANSI of IEEE would be nice. Unfortunately, ICANN has a bit more going for it, mainly:
So, to make sure it acts like a public group and not like a business, we feel the need to place some sort of authoritarian control over it. Since its domain is the world, however, the US government makes little sense for this. How about the UN?
Now I know that many see the UN as either useless or evil, but in certain cases (the World Health Organization, UNICEF,
It says nothing about that, because it isn't a particularly interesting issue. All they did was give each state the same number of electors as they have congressmen. Anything else would have required redoing the painful compromise worked out for congressional representation. They didn't really care about opening that can of worms, because they thought elections would usually end up in the house (there's an extra stipulation that there will be only 1 vote per state in House elections).
I don't think that that really disagrees with what I wrote at all. You are quite correct that the large-state issue, and the corresponding compromise emerged first in the discussions of legislative representation. I don't think that this makes the decision to use the same solution which was reached in that case for the electoral process a light or haphazzard decision.
I'm curious if you would provide a source for the statement that the Founders expected most presidential elections to end up in the house -- this is certainly not the impression I had, or something I have seen claimed elsewhere.
My problem with your posts is that you seem to think the system is working now according to its original design, and thus the conceptions of the designers in this matter are important.
I don't think that anyone is claiming this. What I feel is noteworthy is that the system as it exists today is one that was provided for by the law as written and as ammended in the centuries since written.
In other words, I don't see the evolutions which have occurred within the parameters set by the Constitution as reflecting poorly on the original -- indeed the power of the constitution to evolve through ammendment has allowed it to last longer than any other written constitution in the history of the planet, and reflects very well on the wisdom of its authors.
I do have a problem, however, with legislators and judges who would attempt to short-circuit this evolution by creative re-interpretation of words and phrases which have plain meanings.
That could be the first step of the US leaving the worldwide part of the internet. Not because of building another walls for the US citizens of course.
...
... nice democracy ...
But there are currently rumours about an "EU ICANN" , and when the US government starts to control the ICANN, the EU ICANN *will* come. And other countries might follow
And why will this happen? Because the US is calling itself a democracy and in the next breath it wants to rule a world-wide network
One day we will be able to vote from home on the internet... Just like on Slashdot....
And you'd have Cowboy Neal for president. I'd welcome it :).
Ok, why is the parent post modded down as "overrated"? I post at +2. It helps to burn my karma. If you're the first moderator, how is it possible that I'm "overrated"? No one has rated me yet!!!
I have no complaints about getting modded down as off-topic for any posts I make in this thread. This one may even be a troll. I'm sick of getting modded down by moderators who don't even understand the meaning of the words they're using. That's insulting. If it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, mod it down as offtopic. If you seriously can't figure out what to mod a post as, JUST DON'T MOD IT. let someone who knows what they're doing mod it down.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.'"
As if this isn't exactly what the US Government has done repeatedly over the years!
They exclude us from electing the people we want to elect-- we only get to choose between two parties, and all other parties are not allowed on the ballot (really). They pass unconstitutional taxes (income tax, was supposed to be temporary to support WWI-- that's the FIRST ONE, they changed the constitution to allow it, and never repealed it.)
They regularly pass unconstitutional restrictions on freedom of religion (The drug war and any regulation of marriage fall under this category). etc. etc. etc.
ICANN for all its problems is a lot less worrisome to me than the US Government, which has absolutely NO accountability to anyone, not even its own citizens.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Ok, let me rephrase. I know they _can_ do it with money, but what about ethics ? I thought the whole point of ICANN was to have a "neutral" entity to handle domain name allocation and disputes, specifically so that no single US corporate entity could heavy-hand the system (at least to some extent).
Now we're going back to a bunch of scroogey morons running the internet ? Yay. It's times like this I wish I were a trucker.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
As a US citizen: are you crazy? Parent needs to be clubbed into submission with 'flamebaits' because there's no such moderation as 'psychotic'. Grow up...
As it is, it might nudge us toward a less centralized DNS, which would be a good thing.
I can't believe you think the US Gov't controlling ICANN would be a boon overall for the small guy or that it might force a decentralized DNS. Heh, not by half! Quite the opposite!
This is the same gov't supporting the DMCA and the "War" on Terrorism (or was that civil liberties and citizen's rights?). I think you'd be well advised to look at the things the gov't is laying hands on of late when assessing how democritizing or how useful to the small guy or how open any such Gov't involved affair might be....
Unless of course you want to mark your comments with <NAIVE>....
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
Of course what everyone fails to recall is this: The US government founded the Internet and owns the root DNS system. ICANN serves as an administrator only at the pleasure of the Commerce Department, et. al. Therefore, by eliminating or replacing ICANN, we [used in a collective 'by the people for the people' sense - I don't work for the government...] are only retaking control of what is already ours.
Well, I've heard this a lot myself. The best reference I can find is Grolier's EC entry, which says this:
I'm not sure where online one would go to find a definitive source on this. I can't find a single mention of the electoral college in the Federalist Papers, which would otherwise seem the best bet.
What a joke. I'll trust my government more than companies any day of the week.
You said you were Canadian right? And you said THAT with a straight face? You'd trust the current Canadian government beyond companies?
I have one question: Have you watched the news? What's going on in Public Works and DND and other branches of the Gov't and the shenanigans in the PMO and with the ethics and privacy councillors and (as usual) ignoring the Auditor General.... and you'd trust THOSE GUYS?
You pick some pretty poor places to place your trust, my fellow citizen.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
What you have just said is "the votes of citizens living in urban areas should count less the votes of citizens living in rural areas." Can't you see how undemocratic this is? Primary avenues of campaign influence are the media which have few distance limitations: radio, television, internet. How many people actually go to see a live stump speech? How many people watch nationally televised debates? The Electoral College made sense in the days whistle-stop campaigns and the Pony Express. Today, the unfair advantage it gives to the rural conservative voice offers no counterbalancing advantage to the democratic process. So clearly, the Electoral College should be eliminated.
Apparently I wasn't looking real hard, since there is one devoted to just that. Hamilton doesn't come out and say what he thinks the likelyhood of the House deciding an election is though (he calls it "a contingency". Thinking about it, he wouldn't, as the main point of the FPs was to convince ordinary folks the constitution is a good thing.
However, he did come damn close to saying direct election would be bad because the general public can't be trusted to make a good decision:
And if we lived in a state calling itself a pure democracy, your argument would be on target. We don't, for the simple reason that pure democracy is very subject to abuse by regional cliques and other anomalies which are much more anti-democratic in effect than the compromises built into the current system.
Get over it.
Your rule about "the name must be in active use" is, excuse my .fr, assinine.
I've owned a ".org" domain name since 1992. If you'll check, you'll find that that was way before they charged for the things (and if you check deeper, you will see that the reason they started to charge for the things in the first place was that Dupont and P&G registered all their trademarks as domains in a single day).
My domain has occasionally been "inactive". It's *always* been "inactive", if your definition of "active" only includes port 80 or the host "www" being in the DNS.
Your suggestion is tantamount to the idea that we should give most of Southern Utah to the strip mining companies because they would *actively* use the mineral rights to extract the coal from the largest known coal deposits on the planet.
Excuse me, if I think that ownership should not go to the first person willing to use something up.
If we follow your rule, then IP addresses should all go to SPAM'mers, since they will most certainly "actively use them until they have no more use left in them".
There's "best use", and then there's "active use". The two are rarely, if ever, the same.
We are taking all of the addresses and domain names back later this week. Please stop using them now. We give you permission to use any address starting with the octet of 10. and register names under the DOT top-level domain. To register, please visit our subscription page before 23:59 GMT Friday June 7th.
Sincerely,
hostmaster@nic.dot
The whole reason the US Gov't created ICANN was to get domain name administration out of the US and into an international body. They started this with a sort of a trial, and so far, ICANN has failed in that trial. Once the US is satisfied there is an organization out there that can do what it's supposed to effectively and reliably (some might read that as "according to US interests"), the US will (presumably) wash its hands of the mess.
To be honest, I really fail to see how ICANN has these enormous expenses and little actual output. Something needs to be re-done here, in my opinion.
ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable
Maybe substitute "The US Government" for "ICANN"?
Why do you hate America so much?
/. crowd about the US wanting to take over ICANN, because most /.ers seem not to like ICANN, but at the same time there have been many concerns about privacy issues and the US government. This I think is a valid observation - neither trolling nor particularly insightful - just an observation.
/. discussions about copyright and patent issues.
I'm surprised my original post has gotten three trolls - my only ever troll post didn't get any troll ratings.
My point is merely that there is a real dilemma for the
Of course I guess using the phrase "authoritarian regime" is a bit controversial... but it does seem often to be the tenor of
Ah well, I've got an FBI file by now anyway.
I did not design this game/I did not name the stakes/I just happen to like apples/And I am not afraid of snakes-AniD
Well, the Copyright Term Extension Act was introduced in the senate. Witnesses presented their arguments in favor of it. The bill moved to the senate floor, and it was passed by voice vote all in one day (exactly one week before the 1998 election).
Congress created ICANN, they can destroy it, they can certainly bring it to heel. Since there isn't enough consensus worldwide to render ICANN irrelevant, Congress is the only one who can do the job. Maybe they'll get it right this time.
Of course, this is a dangerious step for Congress to take, popple might start wondering why they don't bring the other out of control "independent" agencies to heel, too.
Most people don't want to be as well off as their neighbor. They want to be better off than their neighbor.
How do you think wealth disparity starts out in the first place? Did Adam Smith's invisible hand pop out of nowhere and plot a wad of cache in the lap's of the now wealthy? Or did someone, somewhere work for that money?
What is the reason to steal from someone when everybody else has the same? How about so you can sell people back their stuff and then you don't have to work. (This is assuming it isn't because there is an invincible army of equalizers constanly evening things out)
"Gee, what was I supposed to do? They gave me money. Who amongst you doesn't need money to survive? Then STFU!" - your politician
Saying they have influence is without question. Saying they are more powerful than the US government is absurd. The government has the power to take the money and give nothing back.
As with the 'energy policy'-gate. Yeah, like Chaney was going to support a green-friendly policy outlawing any sort of pollution.. Ah, but those evil corporations got to him and told him that the only way to salvation was to burn oil, preferably on the dead bodies of some endangered animals.
ZDnet has taken to deleteing talkback posts that link to sites owned by those they censor.
Censorship is very clear when it is dead obvious.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
"Burns said the change was necessary because ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups"
OH......and the US Government is?!?!
Gimme a freakin break!! Jacka** !!
But states do NOT naturally form politically significant blocks anymore. Several of the big states split almost 49-49 this time. Even though the electoral college gives a numerical advantage to the small states, did you see anyone campaigning there? They were busy in the big states, trying to get the last possible .1%, in hopes of "winning" by 49.0 to 48.9% and getting ALL the electoral votes. In my state, among others, the electoral votes were for someone 51% of us voted against and probably despised. (I suspect a lot of the other 49% despised the guy they voted for too, just less than the other one.) And the random effects of this...left it up to a chief vote-counter appointed by GWB's brother and five (in)Justices appointed by his father.
If Florida's electoral votes had been divided proportionally to the popular vote, Gore and Bush would have definitely got 12 each. I'm not sure whether Nader, Bush, or Gore would have got the 25th one, but it's unlikely that it would have mattered. I'm pretty sure that if other states did the same thing, _some_ third party would have got the last electoral college vote in Michigan, and maybe other states. If the vote was close enough for Florida's 25th vote to matter, likely no one would have a majority anyhow and Congress would have picked the winner, rather than extra-constitutional court decisions...
Why not Iraq or Cuba? For God's sake, ICANN is an international body making decisions that affect the whole world. If it answers to anybody, it should be the UN. I know there was historically a link between ICANN and the US Govt but that's no justification.
Democracy alone is not an overriding ideal. There have been many times in history when 50.0001% of a population would have loved to trod on a currently accepted freedom or constitutional right. The US systems works well in part because there is balance of powers between various bodies. If each body were exactly representative, then they would all tend to be more-or-less the same and there would be no differences to balance. By making each body slightly unrepresentative or undemocratic, but in slightly different ways (terms, regions, jurisdictions, etc.), the resulting balance between bodies actually seems to work better in the long run.
Sort of like the internet, consisting of lots of systems without even parity memory, being more failure resistant in total than having everyone depending on one single high-availability mainframe...
They don't have a page up, but here is the whois
correction, they do: have to add the www
Want to start a new one?
In the absence of the electoral college, Whoever took New Yorkifornia would need a very small minority of the other states to take the election in the usual case.
As for Bush v. Gore, leaving aside that there were far from `5' justices appointed by Bush Sr. (try one, Thomas), the court did the only thing it could do. The constitution very clearly makes election policies a federal matter, delegated to the legislature, not the courts of each state (see Article 2). At the point where SCOFLA stepped in and began rewriting election policies, SCOTUS had no choice under the constitution but to get involved. Note that seven Judges ruled that this was the case, even if only five agreed on the specific remedy to be assigned.
Of course, now that all the independent institutions have gone and done their own vote counts, including groups like the New York Times and the University of Chicago who went in with the stated belief that Gore won, and all we know the truth -- every single recount performed, by every single different recount strategy Gore demanded yielded the same or a larger or a larger margin than the official count.
my hands did! Explain to me the difference between this and 'Adobe didn't lock them up, the government did' or perhaps 'I didn't shoot him, my gun did' would be an easier comparison to make.
Oh doh, well the desire to grow in wealth is not the most fundamental human desire (though its in there, sure). We wish to do what we want to do, with minimal interference from others, so essentially to co-exist peacibly. I know I sound like a hippy, but what the hell, because last I checked most of us value living over dying than wanting to get that mad cash 'n shit. It may be what drives parts of this society, but since it isn't the fundamental desire. Adam Smiths invisible hand did pop out of nowhere. That's what the academic community does. It discovers new ideas and ways of thinking which alters human behaviour. Thats what technology is. Discovery. New ideas, new physical manifestations of those ideas .. and while it changes those who are exposed to it, that doesn't neccessarily mean that his idea is THE idea. Humans just follow ideas as they come, and yes, sometimes they go away again.
;) It's not like I'm against material gain, but unmitigated gain, a la free market no limits approach, bad. Everything in moderation. :(
There are plenty of successful self sufficient communites on the planet which did not need to encourage material greed. Sure, some people had a little more than others, some a little less. Course, sure, they are far smaller societies than the western one. I suppose next youll tell me to move to one.
I'm no luddite, but I'm just sayin we impose social limits on lots of things, so is it really safe to stroke the desire to gain money the most? It seems to generate unhappiness much greater than the happiness from my curtural analysis.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I turn to Gundam Wing. Watching the show where Heero Yuy was interesting.
For those of you who have somthing against animation or Anime, Saving Private Ryan anyone?
Question: Will it get us to IPv6 or even v7 faster?
btw, The Screensavers have a poll on the topic of 'Should the government control the Web?'
On the Screensavers page scroll down.
The US Govt. wants to control everything. without exception.
You shall be assimilated, resistance is terrorism.
All your Internet are belong to US!
"ICANN has exceeded its authority"
:-) )
And the Federal Gov. hasn't? What about the civil war?
"does not operate in an open fashion"
And the U.S. Government is all open doors?
"...is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups..."
The U.S. government is only accountable to itself, unless mass public opinion takes hold. Besides, if ICANN goes to the govm't then AOL-Time Warner will just spend $1,000,000,000 on TV addspace and vote themselves exclusive use of the Internet.
Mark my words: this is worse.
Now I DO think that all the communications hardware in the US should be under Federal/State control just like roads are. I think bandwidth should be considered in the same way highways are, with nobody being able to restrict or control use of it. On the same note, we all know that only about 10% of the taxes collected for roads actually go to roads, so there should be an independant accounting firm/agency/group which makes sure that all Internet taxes go to building the internet. (Like my $40/mo going to the Internet Comission and I get VOIP service with a US Postal IP assigned to me and free national DNS.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
... I suspect the gulf is not so large as you envision or one would wish.
First, corporations do operate under restrictions and do get some limited oversight. Boards of Directors have certain legal liabilities and can be sued quite effectively. Shareholders (especially large investment companies) will go after said boards if the situation warrants it.
OTOH, the government, supposedly accountable, has gone out of its way over the past few years to give itself as near to a dictatorial level of power in the PMO as is possible. Has there been any accountability for the fiasco at Public Works? Gagliano went to Denmark, not jail. Has there been accountability for the PM's meddling in Grand Mere? Nope nor is there signs of it. Part of this stems from the fact the Canadian Federal gov't has far less accountability (and I'm not talking leadership race financing...) than other Parliaments like that of the UK and less than their provincial governments. The non-independence of the various auditors is the first and most telling symptom.
In theory, a public institution or public company should both have greater transparency and greater accountability than a private company, which should still have accountability in a legal and accounting sense. OTOH, current attempts to quash the FOIA and various other obstructionist moves are really killing the transparency (such as it was) and the concentration of power in the PMO and the answering of all government officers who audit to the PM has slain accountability (party whips and PM control of nomination paperwork for candidates has really helped) or dissent. If you lose your job for speaking out or are swept under the rug... that doesn't encourage bringing problems to light.
In a perfect world, you are right. Government should be more transparent. But in the real world, the PM wastes millions of your taxpayer dollars and then says "so what?". The gulf in reality between self-interested corporations and self-interested politicos is less than in the ideal. And those politicos also shape law, process, and bureaucracy to their needs.
That clearer?
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
In the absence of the Electoral College, no presidential candidate would ever have incentive to listen to any but a few of the largest states -- and would be much more the president of New Yorkifornia than of the United States. Of course, with the electoral college, that's typically ALL who is listened to anyway.
When the college was first thought of, more representation WAS needed due to the population of different states. Today, we have a much more diverse, and more connected world. Sadly, we can't even put into power the leader *we* think is right, rather than trust that the person we choose to pick for us.
and they instead put an even bigger warmongering idiot into office who promptly proceeded to give our tax refunds to everyone to gain a larger support base.
Of course, the fact that due to the bungling surrounding this refund, my federal income tax check wasn't considered certified. (Usually, you can take the federal income tax check, just like SS checks, to any old bank and cash them...not so this year! People have even had them not clear....)