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.'"
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
"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...
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."
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.
I don't think the government every really did it. Jon Postel did, and he was paid by the government to do so, but it was really just Jon doing the right thing, and the government not having any interest in it.
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
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
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.
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
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,