Slashdot Mirror


ICANN Ditches Public Participation

Ziest writes "The AP is reporting that ICANN, who is meeting in Shanghai, has voted to eliminate direct elections to its board of directors." See also does-not-exist.org. It's not as if this is recent change -- just the last step in a long process.

204 comments

  1. How can they get away with this. by Performer+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone should hold them accountable.... oh wait!

    1. Re:How can they get away with this. by zanerock · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe the real question then, is "How can't they get away with this?" (Insert smiling vaudville danger with cane and jazz-hands.)

    2. Re:How can they get away with this. by Performer+Guy · · Score: 2

      Exactly. They've just removed the last vestiges of accountability. Before now most of them weren't accountable, now they don't even want to associate with anyone who IS accountable. Now they need to be disbanded before they turn into the secretive and beaurocratic money pit they aspire to be.

    3. Re:How can they get away with this. by zanerock · · Score: 1

      Danger => Dancer. I wish I cauld [sic] securely edit my posts.

    4. Re:How can they get away with this. by madshot · · Score: 1

      humm.. lets see.. someone was in the right place at the right time and said "i'm in charge". I think we call that a dictatorship, err.. wait, it's a board of directors. That must mean they were elected by someone. Humm.. still sounds like someone was in the right place at the right time and made a lot of money because of it.... hum.. wish it were me..

      --
      Obama = Socialism.
    5. Re:How can they get away with this. by Dannon · · Score: 1

      Hey, there ain't no danger like that good old vaudeville danger! Hollywood? pfft!

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    6. Re:How can they get away with this. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The election is a symptom not the problem.

      There are plenty of bodies like ICANN that are appointed indirectly. The problem with ICANN is that first they don't appear to want to be accountable to anyone at all and second their decisions appear to be utterly clueless to every consituency they might be attempting to please.

      One might think that they would work out a somewhat more cluefull approach to funding than to simply try to shake down the country TLDs for huge sums. ICANN has no credible threat to back its demands. If they drop .uk from the root the root moves for sure.

      In fact the whole business about who controls the DNS really comes down to the DNS root server operators and in particular the ones with the serious servers for the task. ICANN do not own the IP addresses, the root server operators do.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    7. Re:How can they get away with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not you worry.

      I understood what you meant although your typo
      was pretty damnned funny.

    8. Re:How can they get away with this. by shri · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised you didn't add a quip about regime change in there. :)

    9. Re:How can they get away with this. by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1, Funny
      Now they need to be disbanded before they turn into the secretive and beaurocratic money pit they aspire to be.
      The Emperor has dissolved the imperial senate. The regional commanders now have direct control of their systems.
    10. Re:How can they get away with this. by ethereal · · Score: 1

      ...Fear will keep them in line?

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

  2. Can anyone explain why this is significant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not trolling, just asking what I think is a legit question.

    1. Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.. nobody can explain why it is significant.

    2. Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your question assumes that it is significant to begin with.

    3. Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Informative
      Well, I'll assume you mean this as a legitimate question. I am not the most qualified person to answer the question, but I'll tell you what I do know. The ICANN ultimately sets up procedures and policies for registering domain names and controlling the allocation and deallocation of all TLDs (top level domains, like .com). Why do they control this? Because everybody has always agreed that they do. So to say you are connected to "the Internet" you really need to be pointing to a DNS server that syncs up with the root DNS servers approved by ICANN.


      When does this get relevant? Well, when somebody disagrees about who owns a domain. It's nice that there are standard procedures for disputing these things. And remember when it used to cost some ungodly amount per year to register domains? Then along came OpenSRS and lots of registrars that pushed prices down, opening the web up to further colonization. This had to be approved and initiated by ICANN. The problem? ICANN already operates essentially without answering to any government or external authority, and the "citizens" of the Internet have no real voice in what goes on at ICANN. What if ICANN decides to go back to granting register.com a monopoly on new domain registrations? Well, they won't because the backlash would be huge, I imagine, but I am trying to give an example of what they theoretically could do.


      Also little issues like the transition to IPv6 are governed to some extent by the ICANN, and that matters too - I for one would like my toaster and household appliances to have IP addresses in my frigging lifetime. I'm sure you can find more things the ICANN is responsible for at their website. Or do a Google search. Then tell me if you think maybe the users of the Internet who ultimately pay for its growth and the taxpayers of the nations that set up the original infrastructure for its growth ought to have some say in how it is managed.

    4. Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it IS a troll everyone, but...

      It's because...

      ICANN, the most powerful single entity on the Internet, the single focal point in an otherwise decentralized global network, is now effectively unanswerable to anyone but

      That's significant.

    5. Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? by Mnemia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember when it used to be free to register domains?

    6. Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Well, I was working on the assumption that though he appeared to be a troll, there are always some people who don't know what the significance of the ICANN is. Furthermore, I didn't copy and paste anything - I just wrote off the top of my head what I know of the ICANN's responsibilities and relevance - like I said, I'm not an expert on the topic, but I've certainly dealt with some domain name problems in the past, enough to give me a healthy respect for the importance of ICANN to maintaining a fair and orderly Internet.

    7. Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One correction to your post. ICAAN does answer to the United States Government. Everyone likes to think we operate in this fantasy land that the internet is open and free. If the US government wanted ICAAN to make a change they would comply. Would the US do this? Probably not due to international flack but they do have the authority to do so. ICAAN was created by the US to get the US government out of managing the internet. As it became more global the Administration realized that for appearances the Government needed to take a step back.

    8. Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      actually it was Network Solutions who had the monopoly.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    9. Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1

      but, this body may not continue to maintain a fair internet. it may well be orderly, but this may be a sign that they are favoring private interests

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
  3. FUCK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess I'll never know why this is significant.

    FROWNIE.

  4. Lord Vader has disolved the Senate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The last remnants of the old republic have been swept away...

    1. Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      the emperor dissolved the senate! Geez! Get your shit straight before you try to be all cool.

    2. Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate by schlach · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, the President dissolved the Senate!

      "Fear will keep the local systems in line."

      "The Senate has got a lousy record on my judges. We need to change the Senate for a lot of reasons, and one reason is to make sure we've got a sound judiciary," he said Monday in Denver.

      "This comprehensive plan calls for a clean start..." added the President's lapdog, Ari Fleisher.

      (ok so it's not as bad as i made it sound, but it's still pretty funny, in context)

    3. Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate by madshot · · Score: 1

      you must be the smart on of the bunch :)

      --
      Obama = Socialism.
    4. Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Senate has got a lousy record on my judges.

      But a better record than the Republican Senate had on Clinton's judges. Fucking no-memory, bonheaded Republican morons.

    5. Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate by ces · · Score: 2

      The scary thing is I fully expect Congress to grant the administration sweeping new powers if the Republicans win the Senate.

      Hopefully enough Democrats will object to filibuster most of this nonsense.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    6. Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Misc Imp Officer: "How will they maintain control without the beaurocracy?"

      Hillary Rosen: "Fear will keep them in line. Fear of the Network Solutions monopoly."

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
  5. From the article: by Hayzeus · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...a move that critics complained could make the group indifferent to ordinary users and hurt innovation.

    Right. With this latest move, unresponsiveness now becomes a distinct possibility. I'd really hate to see ICANN become indifferent to ordinary users...

    1. Re:From the article: by RealTimeFreeAgent · · Score: 1

      I'd really hate to see ICANN become indifferent to ordinary users...

      Too late.

      --
      "You get what you pay for after all." --
    2. Re:From the article: by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      What planet have you been living on these past few years? Something has to be responsive before it can become unresponsive!

    3. Re:From the article: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm... perhaps you may want to look here

    4. Re:From the article: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm... perhaps you may want to look here

    5. Re:From the article: by sakeneko · · Score: 1
      ...a move that critics complained could make the group indifferent to ordinary users and hurt innovation.
      Right. With this latest move, unresponsiveness now becomes a distinct possibility. I'd really hate to see ICANN become indifferent to ordinary users...

      No sh*t^H^H^H^Hkidding. <sigh> Still, this change will mean that the public has even less access to the ICANN board. At least now, they have to listen when Karl Auerbach objects to some of their more idiotic decisions.

      While I'm disappointed at this, though, at the same time I can't say that I'm surprised. ICANN was set up as an essentially non-representative body from the outset. It isn't surprising that ICANN's real constituency has grown restless having to give at least some heed to what the elected board members had to say. :/

      I'm not sure whether the solution is a complete change in the ICANN charter and ground-up revamp of its mission, composition, and methods, or shutting down the organization and starting over from scratch. Since the two would probably be close to the same thing, maybe it doesn't matter.

      So, who wants to bell the cat?

    6. Re:From the article: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm... perhaps you may want to look here

    7. Re:From the article: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm... perhaps you may want to look here

    8. Re:From the article: by n9hmg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here's the thread for this:
      Lynn and others said the group's former method of electing five of the 18 board members over the Internet bogged ICANN down in debates that held up its main work -- making decisions that affect everything from how Web sites are named to how e-mail is sent.
      Elected member: "We can't do that, it's wrong. They've been in business, since the great-great-grandfather arrived from Russia in 1830, and been shipping orders from their webpage since 1992!"
      Appointed member: "There he goes again, bogging us down, holding up our main work"
      A.M. 2: "We need to get on with transferring shapirosdelicatessen.com to Microsoft, since the new MS Delicatessen IDE is coming out next fall."
      A.M. 3: "And don't forget, we've got to transfer cerf.net from that cybersquatter, Vint Cerf, Verizon, for their new C(entral) E(uropean) R(adio) F(requency) wireless broadband network."
      Chairman: "Bailiff, remove him."

    9. Re:From the article: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I hate it when people don't get sarcasm.

    10. Re:From the article: by dincubus · · Score: 1

      now while i dont agree with the ICANN decision i do have to admit they had been helpful to me in a few cases.. i.e. spam email. i tried to do the whois on the domain and i got bad info from the whois. i called ICANN and they looked at the master records or something.. they never told me what they did look at. then they told me they would get in touch with the registrar of the domain. less than ten minutes later i had an email from the registrar and no more spam.. so in some cases it can be a good thing :)

      --
      a wise man once said "two wrongs dont make a right, but three rights do make a left" and that wise man was gallagher
  6. Information wants to be free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to call you it's bitch. All your board-members are belong to us!

    1. Re:Information wants to be free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its

  7. Did you notice this? by Milo+Fungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Critics said the revisions were aimed at getting rid of dissenting board members who say the group is out of touch with Internet users.

    Did this line jump out at anyone else? They were tired of people telling them that they were out of touch with internet users, so they decided to stop allowing internet users to elect members of the board. Isn't that like cutting off your leg because of an ingrown toenail?

    Or am I just out of touch with the politics here?

    1. Re:Did you notice this? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 4, Funny


      Not exactly. I would say it is more like having a lobotomy because your brain keeps telling you it's not good to eat toxic waste, but you happen to like the taste of it.

    2. Re:Did you notice this? by mttlg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't that like cutting off your leg because of an ingrown toenail?

      Actually, it's more like cutting off your feet with a rusty pocketknife because they hurt when you walk barefoot on broken glass and rusty nails.

    3. Re:Did you notice this? by raretek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Or am I just out of touch with the politics here?"

      No, you've obviously have been hit way too hard by a clue hammer.

      Unfortunately, to understand ICANN, you have to be hopelessly without clue and/or possessed with the knowledge that whoever disagrees with you is wrong. It also helps to be on the corporate dole...

      --
      Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
    4. Re:Did you notice this? by schon · · Score: 5, Funny

      They were tired of people telling them that they were out of touch with internet users, so they decided to stop allowing internet users to elect members of the board.

      In other news, Vint Cerf was heard to remark "Let them eat cake!"

    5. Re:Did you notice this? by WeaponOfChoice · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yet another Dilbert-Reality crossover. This really reminds me of the strip where the boss is explaining to the Engineers that due to the lousy results of the employee satisfaction survey (upon which part of management bonuses are based) the survey would be discontinued.

      On a more serious note I would have thought there'd be some legislation to stop a public services company ('cause that's what ICANN is, like it or not) from reducing it's public accountability...

      --


      It's not that I'm Anti-American - I'm Pro-Freedom
    6. Re:Did you notice this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that like cutting off your leg because of an ingrown toenail?

      No, that's like cutting of your ears because you're sick of people telling you their too small.

    7. Re:Did you notice this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmmm, so when is his beheading (e.g. removal as head of ICANN) due? :)

  8. They want public participation by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They want public participation only as long as the public blindly follows what the board wants to do and not question their edicts.

    If ICANN had any interest in real public participation, then we would never had heard of Karl Auerbach as he would not have to file a lawsuit against ICANN to see the books.

  9. I think it's time... by tuxlove · · Score: 1

    ... for someone to start a parallel namespace run in true freeware style. ICANN is an abomination.

    1. Re:I think it's time... by zanerock · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, if all profit oriented corporations are abominations. But, that's another discussion.

      The problem isn't ICANN, it's the fact that we let the thing be run by ICANN in the first place.

  10. Wired ICANN take by Badger · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If you read the Wired article, they have some interesting points:

    1. I love how the European representative is much more sanguine about this move than Karl. Makes me laugh them /. trolls whine about how ICANN is a US puppet.
    2. If you take this article seriously, ICANN dies a painful death come June. What will replace it is another question.
  11. OpenNIC by yerricde · · Score: 4, Informative

    a parallel namespace run in true freeware style.

    You mean like OpenNIC?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:OpenNIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that we should consider creating a slightly different form of ipv6 with one extra byte of address space. Yes, that would increase packet size, but it would also allow for the building and controlling of a new internet. By adding one extra byte, it becomes possible to embed Ipv4/6 packets inside and still have a new network being set up. With that, it is easier to take back the net

    2. Re:OpenNIC by bshanks · · Score: 1

      cool, thanks. b/c of ICANN's latest move, i just put openNIC first in my /etc/resolv.conf

  12. Are they on crack? by Dynedain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now,"

    Uh? How does getting rid of publicly voted board members, and then buffering yourself from the risk of being voted out make one "more plugged-in to the community"???

    Do they actually believe the bull that they are shoveling? Do they actually expect us to believe it?

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    1. Re:Are they on crack? by zapfie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now,"

      Uh? How does getting rid of publicly voted board members, and then buffering yourself from the risk of being voted out make one "more plugged-in to the community"???


      Two words:

      Propaganda

      ...ok, maybe one word.

      --
      slashdot!=valid HTML
    2. Re:Are they on crack? by cpeterso · · Score: 2


      war is peace.
      freedom is slavery.
      ignorance is strength.

  13. Shanghai by csnydermvpsoft · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shame they had to have it in China - dang dictatorship must be contagious.

    1. Re:Shanghai by digitalsushi · · Score: 2

      Getting your history confused- it's not the Dang Dictatorship, it's the Dang Dynasty. Honest mistake, I'm sure.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
  14. From the article by L.+VeGas · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lynn said he would recommend adding three new Internet domain names, though he said there were no plans yet on when to create them or what they would be called.

    hmmm, how about

    .cant .touch .this

    or
    .we .the .man

    or
    .out .of .touch

    or
    ....

    1. Re:From the article by c.derby · · Score: 1

      I assume that was an attempt at humor...

      --
      -- derby
    2. Re:From the article by StarMember · · Score: 1

      My mama said never assume because it makes an ass out of u and me.

      --
      Wish I was a Physics Genius
  15. biased joke ICANN movie by gearheadsmp · · Score: 0

    As always, the ICANN movie(s) are here.

  16. A previous Slashdot article about the event by yerricde · · Score: 2

    For more information about the elimination of the five publicly elected seats on ICANN's board, please refer to this article on Slashdot.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  17. So long .free, hello .chains by loucura! · · Score: 1

    Well, now that the naming conventions of the internet are in the hands of big business, and there is no recourse us 'ordinary' users can use to fight it, does this mean that we have to go offline and go outside?

    It's cold out there.

    Granted, it just got a whole lot colder in here. It is too bad that an alternate registry cannot gain enough momentum to actually compete versus ICANN.

    So long .free, we'll miss you. Certainly .regime won't be so bad, it will be 'efficient', and 'autonomous'. It's quite ironic that they held the meeting in China.

    --
    Black and grey are both shades of white.
  18. Rumbles and grumbles by No_Weak_Heart · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some related items: there are rumblings of possible alternatives and here is a paper presented by the Centre for Democracy and Technology to the Shanghai conference yesterday, which outlines a few suggestions as to how things might be improved.

  19. And having dropped all pretention of fairness by 3-State+Bit · · Score: 5, Funny

    or democracy, ICANN begins the process of subverting the Internet toward its own nefarious private goals.

    In keeping with these changes, ICANN announces that it will be changing its name to reflect its new mission to become:

    Universal Controller of All Network Traffic.

    (Headline: ICANN changes name to UCANT).

    Credit.

    1. Re:And having dropped all pretention of fairness by uberstool · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot has also changed it's name to

      66.35.250.150

  20. Crooks by dh003i · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really, how are they any different from Saddam Hussein? Rised to power through illegitimate means; eliminate true public elections; now organize these scam elections which are just like the elections in Iraq.

    ICANN has no legitimacy. If they did, ALL of their board member's would be publicly elected. Unless ALL of their board member's are publicly elected, the entire organization is a illegitimate crock.


    "This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now," Lynn said


    What a fucking moron. How the fuck is it possible to be more "plugged-in to the community" by eliminating public elections? It isn't. The only possible reason for eliminating public elections is to dodge all responsibility, so you can never be held accountable.

    As for more efficient, yes, it will be more efficient at making immoral decisions; just like Saddam Hussein is very efficient at quickly deciding how to execute his enemies. Its really tough to make immoral decisions when you have to worry about public elections. Much easier to just cave in to business demands when you don't have to be held accountable to the public at large.

    1. Re:Crooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they have no legitimacy then why do you use their Name servers?

      P.S. That's why they are in power. Use a different DNS Root and you will be free of ICANN.

    2. Re:Crooks by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Really, how are they any different from Saddam Hussein?
      Saddam retains power through force. ICANN retains power through apathy and inertia.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:Crooks by graybeard · · Score: 2
      Really, how are they any different from Saddam Hussein?

      They aren't developing weapons of mass destruction?

      Oops, I forgot about the .info TLD. Never mind.

    4. Re:Crooks by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Too bad you can't say the same about the US, when asked the same question (ICANN replaced with USA).

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  21. Proposal for competition in domain name services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I propose to incorporate the name of the domain lookup service as part of the URL. For example:
    http://slashdot.org/ becomes http://icann:slashdot.org/ or http://slashdot.org:icann/ or maybe http://slashdot.org.icann/ . I'm sure someone out there has a better idea how to modify the syntax to add a DNS lookup service into a URL. If a DNS service is not provided in a URL, then the default DNS server is used (it would end up being a network setting). I'm willing to start adding that sort of functionality to Linux systems.

    While we are talking about revamping the domain name system, if someone starts up an independent domain lookup service, now's a good time to drop the meaningless .org, .com, and .net extentions for that new service.

  22. Irony Meter is pegging... by Black+Art · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone else find it ironic that this announcement was made in Shanghai?

    --
    "Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
    1. Re:Irony Meter is pegging... by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh no. It was the G8 that came up with the brilliant idea of holding a meeting in a location where public protest is illegal (Quatar, I believe it was.)

      Funny thing, huh? Its almost like countries themselves have become conference halls, each with its own set of convenient or inconvenient services (er, laws) for the planners of our future.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Irony Meter is pegging... by Mauler · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was the WTO that eluded street protests by meeting in Qatar (November, 2001.)

      The G8 are the richest 7 "democracies", plus whatever you call Russia these days, so their options are more limited. (It would be too embarassing to hold every meeting in Russia, or to hold a meeting outside of their countries.) So for their June, 2002 meetings they picked one of the most remote locations possible, the resort of Kananaskis, Canada.

    3. Re:Irony Meter is pegging... by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      I stand corrected. :)

      Yeah, I found it funny they held that meeting in a place where if protesters went en masse, theyd be labeled hypocrites (ie harm to the delicate environment there) by default. Very clever.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  23. Good by drhairston · · Score: 1, Troll

    For things like nations, elections may be all well and good (though I fail to see that that's been proven yet) but for small institutions on a limited budget, elections are a monumental pain in the arse. I hope my local Board of Regents follows suit. Putting University funding and appointment behind close doors would stop a whole rash of problems, from students smearing us in their rag of a newspaper to inquisitive alumni attempting to get their shills elected.

    --
    Dr. Joseph Hairston
    Superintendent, CCBC
    1. Re:Good by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Not to worry. With luck ICANN won't be around much longer.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    2. Re:Good by FIT_Entry1 · · Score: 1

      Yah this whole "democracy" thing is just a fad, hopefully it will go away soon.

    3. Re:Good by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      > Putting University funding and appointment behind close doors

      Is this before of after the school changes its name to The Pepsi Insitute for Higher, Fizzier Learning?

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  24. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the users got Shanghaied.

  25. The good thing by jukal · · Score: 2

    if you want one, might be that without direct elections the might manage to make up a board of directors which actually can face a consensus on matters. In some sense, the result of the previous mechanism was partially a competition for getting the most press coverage... a big percent of people just don't even consider unknown individuals as a candidate.

  26. Uh, so what can we do? by bludstone · · Score: 1

    So... What can we do about it?

    It seems like theyve shut us out of all legit, legal options. Time to break out the brass knuckles and get ready for a serious physical beatdown.

    Im kidding of course.. but seriously, what do we do now?

    --

    no .sig
  27. Its the plan by TerryAtWork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a part of the long term plan of the business community to appropriate the Internet after it flew in totally under their radar.

    They want to turn the whole digital thing into push technology in the hands of a few - like TV.

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
  28. Im tired by cranos · · Score: 1

    You know what? I am tired of hearing about ICANNs bullshit.

    I am still confused as to why an American company can possibly be allowed to control the Internet. I know the history so don't tell me about ARPANet and the rest, the simple fact is, the Internet is no longer an American institution, it has gone global.

    Why not set up an International body to take over from ICANN? A body with full participation of the Internet Community from the start.

    Ah forget it, why would they do that, it would only give power to the people.

  29. Re:Thank God for this; it's long overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're being sarcastic, I hate you. Otherwise, kudos and big ups.

  30. Zero public participation = zero credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough said.

  31. ICANN because ICANN that's why! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Okay, this situation has become quite surreal. There isn't even any sneaking around on this thing they're doing. They're clearly going well outside of what they were created to do... way out of bound on this.

    Frankly, I do not want to see people writing their senators on this one though. I want to see an internet-elected system that everyone has dreamed of and then MAKE IT HAPPEN. Once we have a respected and responsible internet name counsil created along with a good base set of servers, then we simply persuade everyone to switch over.

    Okay... I see the first hurdle that will be difficult -- getting people to switch. It can be done people. If there is no interruption in normal usage, it can be done. Further, once we have a good strong and accountable body in place with all the rules and regs ironed out in such a way that everyone agrees it to be a fair system, THEN we start crying to our senators and stuff. Show them that not only is ICANN screwed up, but we have something created to replace them today. Once they see that we offer more than a complaint, but a solution, how can they easily say no?

    We can make a huge petition to push this thing through. They have to listen.

    Complaints alone will not correct this problem. If you leave it to someone else to fix it, it will not be fixed in a way you will appreciate.

    1. Re:ICANN because ICANN that's why! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once they see that we offer more than a complaint, but a solution, how can they easily say no?

      Like this: "No." See how easy that was?

      We can make a huge petition to push this thing through. They have to listen.

      No, they don't have to listen. With the corporations giving them money, and your side just giving them petitions, they're not going to listen to you at all.

      The only way to get rid of ICANN is to set up your own servers that replace theirs. Each and every single damn node on the whole 'net will vote with their packets. It's the only voting system any of us have access to that isn't already rigged against us.

      Stop yelling at other people to play fair, and start actually *doing* something.

    2. Re:ICANN because ICANN that's why! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Frankly, I do not want to see people writing their senators on this one though. I want to see an internet-elected system that everyone has dreamed of and then MAKE IT HAPPEN. Once we have a respected and responsible internet name counsil created along with a good base set of servers, then we simply persuade everyone to switch over.

      So... Whoever has the most ICANN karma points controls the Internet? Cool! I sure hope that Funny moderation points count!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  32. Important Stuff: by The+Bungi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    • Please try to keep posts on topic.
    • Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
    • Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
    • Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
    • Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

    Is my "karma" gone yet?

    Cool!

  33. From the article... by El_Smack · · Score: 2

    "Now that LACNIC (the Latin and Central America Registry) has signed up with ICANN there is pressure on the Africans to double their efforts to finalise AFRINIC."

    Shouldn't they really call themselves "AFRICANN"? Come on, that seems like a no brainer.

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    1. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How this is flamebait? What part of it is factually incorrect?

  34. There's a difference by rjstanford · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster ...
    Efficient and effective are not always the same thing. After all, something humming away in an idle loop and not trying to do anything else can be 100% efficient...
    ... and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now
    Nothing like removing community input to increase reactiveness to the community. Er, well, sort-of...
    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  35. That was Monday's Karl Auerbach story by billstewart · · Score: 5, Informative

    They never wanted public participation; it was always pretty much for show, and the way they treated Karl was partly because they never wanted public participation and partly because he'd not only been elected by the public to push them into letting *actual*Internet*users* have some influence over ICANN's directions, which (as I believe I may have mentioned) they didn't want, but went beyond that to actually *try* to have some influence over ICANN, or at least force some shadow of openness or accountability onto ICANN, which they also didn't want. So when they got rid of him, they made it clear they didn't want him to be replaced; this is just formalizing it.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:That was Monday's Karl Auerbach story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's still listed on ICANN's website. Is he no longer a board member? When did this happen? Do you have a link?

    2. Re:That was Monday's Karl Auerbach story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's still listed on ICANN's website. Is he no longer a board member? When did this happen? Do you have a link?

      Yes, from Monday...just like the subject line says.

  36. Wasnt' this always a sham anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I mean, there wasn't any public participation for most of ICANN's history, and then when they decided to have publicly elected board members they only made 5 of 18 seats elected. The public members would always be a minority and outvoted by the vested interests.

    I don't see this as any big loss. Just more honest.

  37. Saddam Hussein was re-elected recently. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He got 100% of the vote. I repeat: 100%. It is well known, of course, that Iraq is not a US puppet. It is a free nation, of free people who have freely chosen their leader and support him freely. The US is a corrupt dictatorship; the 2000 election was stolen. This criminality taints all allies and satellites of the USA, but Iraq is clean. The USA is a criminal rogue nation, an arrogant bully. This is axiomatic, and easily proven by the USA's great unearned wealth. This criminality also taints all the USA's allies, but again Iraq is morally clean. The USA believes in guilt by association, and that criminal practice too taints all of its allies and associates. This is why the killing of Australian citizens is a justified act of self-defense, just like the killing of American citizens: All share guilt for the same horrific crimes against humanity. But here too, Iraq is clean.

    Spare me the childish red herrings about Kurds and Kuwait; you can't win the argument by changing the subject and I am not interested in your racist anti-Islamic propaganda.

    1. Re:Saddam Hussein was re-elected recently. by chrysaetos · · Score: 1

      It isn't all that hard to get 100% of the vote when Saddam is the only one on the ballot and yes is the only option, and you are required by law to vote.

    2. Re:Saddam Hussein was re-elected recently. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      He got 100% of the vote. I repeat: 100%

      If i was 'president' and had the miltary watching the voters, i could probably get 100% of votes too. Fact of the matter is in any truely free election i don't think anyone would get 100% of the votes. Millions of people, and not ONE thinks someone else can do better? Please.

      It is a free nation, of free people who have freely chosen their leader and support him freely.

      Why can't the citizens protest whenever they want? why are they always organized by the gov? Why are political dissenters put in jail?

      The US is a corrupt dictatorship; the 2000 election was stolen.

      Yes, the election was poorly done. It was close, and many mistakes were made. It may have been stolen. That doesn't change the fact that we do have elections, and we can replace them every 4 years. We have a system of checks and balances that attempts to keep any one group from gaining too much power.

      This criminality taints all allies and satellites of the USA, but Iraq is clean.

      Iraq kills its own citizens. It used biological and chemical weapons quite frequently in the Iranian war. It invaded another sovreign nation. I hardly call this clean.

      The USA is a criminal rogue nation, an arrogant bully

      I agree the US abuses its power. I disagree with alot of our forgein policies. The US does try to bully other countries. But i can say this without being throw into jail. I can attempt to change the things i find wrong with my country.

      This is axiomatic, and easily proven by the USA's great unearned wealth. This criminality also taints all the USA's allies, but again Iraq is morally clean.

      Some of the wealth might be unjustifed, and i'm sure some is not. You're using a pretty broad brush, you're bound to paint a bad picture. Iraq is hardly morally clean.

      . The USA believes in guilt by association, and that criminal practice too taints all of its allies and associates.

      I don't believe that; i know alot of americans that don't. You seem to believe it though; because a country is allied with us, they are just as guilty you claim. Do all of our allies do all the awful things you claim the US does? Doubtful.

      This is why the killing of Australian citizens is a justified act of self-defense, just like the killing of American citizens: All share guilt for the same horrific crimes against humanity. But here too, Iraq is clean.

      Killing is wrong, there is no justification for it. However i'll think like you for a minute. Arab terrorists killed innocent US citizens, so killing Arabs and their allies is justified.

      Spare me the childish red herrings about Kurds and Kuwait; you can't win the argument by changing the subject and I am not interested in your racist anti-Islamic propaganda.

      Red herring? Interesting, so apperently it doesn't matter if iraq invades another sovriegn nation. The US bullies other nations by abuse of power and is wrong, but iraq can invade and forcibly take over any country it wants and is morally clean? Also very doubtful.

      Let me leave you with this thought. Russia provides aid to iraq. Russia is provided with aid by the US. So russia is gulity by association, and therefore iraq is as well. So start blowing yourself up.

    3. Re:Saddam Hussein was re-elected recently. by Fiveeight · · Score: 1

      That 100% thing puzzles me. I mean, they must /know/ what it looks like. Surely 90+% would be more credible (at the very least, it wouldn't be /instantly/ unbelieveable) and show that Saddam is a benevolent father of the nation, or whatever shit he's trying to pull. Claiming 100% just makes it instantly obvious that there were no other candidates.

      Plus, are they claiming that 100% of the people voted? Because that's even more insane. Did the people in jail vote? Did the people undergoing surgery vote? Did the people who died in traffic accidents on the way to the polls vote?

      They have a lot to learn about fixing elections.

    4. Re:Saddam Hussein was re-elected recently. by mpe · · Score: 2

      Yes, the election was poorly done. It was close, and many mistakes were made. It may have been stolen. That doesn't change the fact that we do have elections, and we can replace them every 4 years.

      Just having elections dosn't mean that much. Few people would have claimed that Soviet Russia was democratic or that Robert Mugabe was fairly elected as the leader of Zimbabwe.
      What you need are free and fair elections. With procedures for counting which are open and transparent. It soon became clear in 2000 that this was not the case with the disputed ballots (indeed it would be very hard to make a mechanised system which was) and that procedures for handling recounts simply didn't exist.

      We have a system of checks and balances that attempts to keep any one group from gaining too much power.

      Which apparently don't take into account political parties and can be more imagined than real.

  38. irony by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

    No, China is a fitting place for the meeting.
    Gopher Gulch (or whatever Ayn Rand's utopian place was) would be an ironic place for the meeting.

    --

    You either believe in rational thought or you don't
  39. In other news... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 5, Funny


    The Earth shifted even further in it's orbit, as Jon Postel continued spinning madly in his grave.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its
      .

    2. Re:In other news... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Damn. I *knew* I should have used preview! I knew that was wrong. Thanks.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  40. The inevitable name change... by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 3, Funny

    Universal
    Corporation for
    Assigning
    Names and
    Numbers via
    Totalitarianism

  41. Directors? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1
    eliminate direct elections to its board of directors.

    You mean "Board of dictators", right?

    --
    You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  42. The other half of the question by airrage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lynn states, "We want to welcome and bring to the table all that are interested in issues that concern ICANN," Of course, the other half of this sentence is, "..without really taking your comments seriously."

    --
    "This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
  43. Re:ICANN Ditches Ordinary Users by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Headline I'd rather see: Ordinary Users Ditch ICANN

    I'm sure I'm not alone.

  44. Broadcast Spectrum by OzPhIsH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now I'm just wondering how long will it take for the board our our Government or someone to sell out vast proportions of available internet bandwidth or addressing to large media companies "in the spirit to increase the public benefit" much like what happened to another of our 'public' resources, the television broadcast spectrum. The last thing I want to see is "internet TV brought to you by MSNBC" and the rest of us getting 5 minutes of public access... The public should be involved in what direction public resources take, either directly or indirectly. Getting cut out of the loop means we're gonna get screwed somehow, somewhere down the line.

    --

    "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    1. Re:Broadcast Spectrum by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does "our Government" (not sure which one that is) sell out the "available internet bandwidth". Governments selling licenses to use broadcast spectrum at least makes sense - two people can't use the sample frequency at the same time without cooperating. On the other hand, internet bandwidth is not a limited resource - all you have to do is lay down another fiber optic line to add more.

      As far as access to bandwidth goes - if you're willing to pay for it, the numerous companies who own fiber optic lines running around the world are more than willing to sell it to you. Of course, commerical sites tend to have more of it, since they can afford to pay for it.

      Unlike broadcast, you can have as much bandwidth as you want from point A and point B. Of course, you may have to lay down more fiber if it isn't already there, and that is reflected in the pricing. Nobody regulates this area (well, beyond regulations that deal with running wires around cities in general) and there is competition.

      Bandwidth isn't a public resource. It doesn't need to be, as it isn't nearly as much a natural monopoly as last-mile telephone is.

      Of course, you might argue that DNS roots are a public resource - so if you are really talking about meaningful DNS addresses going to big multinationals that is a different matter...

  45. Shanghai'd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been shanghai'd by ICANN!

  46. coloreds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think slashdot just misread the press release, and it's just that negroes don't get to vote anymore.

  47. History Repeats Itself... by avgjoe62 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now," Lynn said

    That's right. Mussolini got the trains running on time and Hitler got the Autobahns built. I guess we need a dictatorship to get stuff done efficiently and effectively...

    --

    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    1. Re:History Repeats Itself... by mlippert · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, I seem to have encountered mention of Hitler or Nazis in several of the threads I've browsed in the last week or two.

      It just made me wonder if Godwin's law also applies to /.?

      And if it does, what does it mean when those posts are modded up?!?

      Mike

    2. Re:History Repeats Itself... by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1
      Actually, Hitler was an afterthought. I always think of Mussolini when I think of what freedoms people are willing to sacrifice so the trains will run on time. What are we willing to give up for a little more efficiency, effectiveness or security? And when, if ever, do we get those freedoms back?

      I wonder if Godwin's law also applies to Mussolini? After all, if you've seen one WW2 fascist dictator, you've seen them all...

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    3. Re:History Repeats Itself... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Mussolini got the trains running on time

      I thought he just shot anyone who said the trains were late. It would have been much more efficient and effective...

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:History Repeats Itself... by DoctorFrog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My neighbor's uncle was there, and he assures me that Il Duce's train schedules bore the same relation to reality as Potempkin's villages.

  48. who cares by hfastedge · · Score: 0

    Sometimes its good to let them take care of themselves.

    Its not like it prevents them from being accountable (which is all that really matters) when they screw things up.

    Although on the other hand, this is one of the true places where u could exercise amazing democracy with internet voting for them.

    --

    -- -- --

    Help my mini cause: My journal

  49. Unifying, isn't it? by SexyKellyOsbourne · · Score: 2

    They want public participation only as long as the public blindly follows what the board wants to do and not question their edicts.


    That universal statement applies to US Presidential elections, capitalism, protests, this very website, and many other aspects of the modern world.

    The only true way to freedom for any institution is continuous open revolt -- ICANN should be protested everywhere they go like the WTO and the World Bank are, as they are nothing but a dictatorial politburo posing as a public institution that must be overthrown.
    1. Re:Unifying, isn't it? by Anonymous+Cowtard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Put down the revolutionary propaganda and chill dude. The only effect continuous protesting would have is to cause people to ignore you just on principle. "Oh, here they go again."

    2. Re:Unifying, isn't it? by Dave+Burbank · · Score: 1

      Why? Bececause he is right? Subistute "revolt" with "accountable democrate process for change" and it sounds much more practical.

      ICANN is a body designed to manafacture consent, as guided by "informed parties". Like the poster mentioned this is the same function as presidential elections. The results are supposed to be unifying, and the process is supposed to be percieved as sancrosact and not up for debate. The result is a pushed result not one built the population.

  50. Calm down by sevensharpnine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All the fear mongering here is somewhat misplaced, at least considering the long term. ICANN simply generates a bunch of policies that people *voluntarily* choose to abide by. ICANN has little in the way of enforcement. What legal settlements have transpired have been caused by contracts/agreements (AFAIK) and not laws stating ICANN owns/controls anything. ICANN has no teeth. This is nothing that can't be solved by an alert internet populace. See also: openNIC.

    --
    "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
  51. What's stopping us from creating our own DNS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why not?

  52. Why don't they just change their name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why don't they just change their name already from "ICANN" to "UCANNT"?

  53. Now the last vestiges of the Old Republic... by Leperflesh · · Score: 1

    ...have been swept away. Fear will keep the local systems in line.

    --
    I am allowed to criticize you: you are not allowed to criticize me. Sorry, that's just how things are.
  54. How long until... by bopo · · Score: 2

    this page simply says "GET BENT" in 72pt type?

    --
    "Understand you're having a little Jimmy Page trouble."
  55. I was holding back.... i really was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do your research man! Don't you know that the reason that the "church" has as many saints, etc as they do is to convert the so-called "hethens(those not christian)" to catholicism? They took the pagan holidays and created christian counterparts to them in a effort to move people away from paganism...

    For example:
    Pagan Holiday ||Church's holiday
    Hallow's Eve (samhain) = Halloween
    Yule = Christmas
    Beltane = Easter
    Others to follow..

    If you don't believe me, Google for 'Saint Bridget"
    and "Fire goddess" and you will see that they are one and the same. Look into ancient history and look at how the Indians were "converted" they were tortured and beaten in the name of christianity..

    Besides we all know who the devil really is... Bill Gates!

    hehe
    I'll take my -1 (troll) or -1 (Pagan) now..

  56. Don't throw in the towel... by raretek · · Score: 1

    "It is too bad that an alternate registry cannot gain enough momentum to actually compete versus ICANN."

    Is that really true? Or is that just the way you've chosen to see it? I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking you, I'm not. Exercising your faith in this manner makes it true for you, thus making sure that you won't even bother to try to bring about the needed change. Thinking like this is why we are owned by the corps. Everyone just throws up their hands and says "Oh, there is no easy way around this, I guess we lost since there isn't an easy way to win." Then we all pretend we tried, when in reality, we didn't do jack but bitch and moan.

    Be careful how you exercise your faith. For better or worse, it is to you according to your ability to believe.

    --
    Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
  57. Fitting by FIT_Entry1 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed how fitting it is that ICANN, a dictitorial government sanctioned monolopy which operates in a complete vacuum and is answerable to noone, should choose to make such a descion in China.

  58. The time to act is now by seldolivaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously. The time to stop a bad organization like ICANN is before they become too big to be feasibly replaced. The longer you leave ICANN in its unelected position of power, the more power it will consolidate and the more responsibility it will assume, until it becomes impossible to replace ICANN -- because nobody but ICANN will understand how to do all the things they do. Apathy towards a bad organization simply because it is not yet being malicious is exactly the attitude that has brought some of history's worst tyrants to power.

  59. Re:No more parasitic "civil servants"? Good. by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

    depends on how you define "productive menmbers of society".

    The people trying to further themseleves? This is where CEOs and businesses like Enron come in.

    People trying to do what is in their best interests, while looking out for others - good luck finding many of these people - they were run out of business long ago by the Wal-Marts of the world.

    People trying to further the community before themselves? This was once the defining characteristic of a polotician. Then DC was built, and the poloticians had a place to get drunk and have sex with prostitues... It was down hill from there.

    As for the wealth and freedom aspect - greed and the lust for power are too great, and freedom requires education and vigilance by everyone, not great leaders.

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
  60. Like OpenNIC, but less stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean like OpenNIC [unrated.net]? .geek? .null? .indy?

    And they want to be taken seriously?

    1. Re:Like OpenNIC, but less stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? What's wrong with .geek? You don't have to use it if you don't want to - they still direct you properly to the com/org/net/etc sites.

  61. Nobody owns the internet. by mindstrm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    yes... we've all heard it a million times before, right?

    Let's just re-cap what it means though:

    The RFCs, ICANN, the DNS system, and so on, none of these are definitive authorities on anything. The reason the internet (a large collection of networks) works is because we all follow roughly the same standards; we all agree to follow what icann says with regards to who owns what IP addresses, and we all agree to use the current DNS system. Nothing FORCES anyone to follow any of these with their systems, other than the desire to obtain the benefits that go along with playing nicely with others.

    If ICANN gets too far out of whack, they can be ignored. For instance: IF a bunch of major networks get together and decide that they no longer want to follow icanns regulations regarding ip address allocation, and that they are all going to start using some space that icann refuses to allocate, nothing will stop them. IT's their network, their business; if they all agree to route this traffic to each other, all the better.
    The same goes for dns; if the dns system gets too crazy, a new standard can emerge, and peopel can follow it.

    Of the RFCs that are relevant to the modern internet, we don't use them strictly. We don't use all features of IPv4, for instance.. it's a guideline, not a rule.

    It's all about cooperation; if icann stops being a benefit to the internet at large, it will simply be let go.

  62. Artificial Scarcity by Elentar · · Score: 2, Informative

    DNS is flawed. When designed, it no doubt made sense to limit the system to a fixed set of TLD's and root servers. Technology wasn't available at the time to allow for much else. Creating an artificially limited namespace was a necessity driven by the cost of implementation. And as a balance to that, there was no fee to register a domain.

    That was a long time ago. Today, this artificially limited system has resulted in an entire commodity market driven solely by the decision to allow companies to profit by controlling the growth of the system.

    It's privateering, plain and simple. Those administering the system have no incentive to expand it. ICANN and the other groups act as thugs enforcing the status quo, while users are forced to deal with the inflated costs created by artificially limited supply. The thugs occasionally throw a few improvements out to appear generous and justify their existence.

    Let's review: The change to a laissez-faire market resulted in DNS being subject to normal economic pressures. With a focus on profit instead of service, DNS suppliers quickly recognized the potential in encouraging demand while not providing for any growth in supply.

    Now, for a great many of you reading this, capitalism and democracy mean the same thing. A lot of you DO know the difference, however, and haven't really thought about whether you consider yourselves capitalists or not. And a few of you, who undoubtedly read Kuro5hin, have strong opinions one way or the other about capitalism.

    Me, I hate it. While capitalism _is_ true to human nature, it does not encourage noble behavior. There is no incentive for suppliers to produce more simply because it serves the common good, and no incentive for purchasers to pay more money simply because the supplier's values are more respectable. The government attempts to simulate these things by taking money from everyone and using it to reward those individuals and organizations whose values coincide with those of the bureaucrats in power. Values like multiple children, home mortgages, a spouse without a career.

    Enough ranting. If you actually read this far, then you can surely find more drivel like mine - just Google for 'Libertarian'...

    -Elentar

    --
    The wheel it turns, around and around, with an ancient rumbling sound.
    1. Re:Artificial Scarcity by mpe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      DNS is flawed. When designed, it no doubt made sense to limit the system to a fixed set of TLD's and root servers. Technology wasn't available at the time to allow for much else. Creating an artificially limited namespace was a necessity driven by the cost of implementation. And as a balance to that, there was no fee to register a domain.

      The problem isn't with with the DNS, it's with misusing the DNS as though it is a flat namespace. Thus you get www.someadvertisingsloganwhichwillonlybeusedfor3mo nths.com and the like. DNS names are the equivalent of addresses or telephone numbers. There is no one demonstrating outside the UN for more countries so they can get a postal address or banging on the ITU's door that more country codes are needed so they can get a phone. Country names and country codes are the equivalent of TLDs

  63. Technically ICANN has no power by btempleton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It just has de facto power because every nameserver in the world is configured to point at ICANN's set of root servers, and it is that way because the name servers all come configured that way out of the box.

    There is a good reason for this, we don't want a fractured net where different people get different answers to a DNS query.

    At the same time, if we truly have the will to dump ICANN, and we all do it at once (or at least the most commonly used nameservers do it at once) their power can be totally stripped from them.

    I outline how at this page

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    1. Re:Technically ICANN has no power by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      Once the root server tells your system where the master ".org" server is, your system asks it where "eff.org" is. In particular, it gets back the raw internet IP address, the low level "phone number" of the internet. With that answer, your computer can talk directly to the computers at eff.org

      Actually, the root server will tell them to ask the .org server for the DNS servers for eff.org, and then it'll ask those servers for what eff.org should translate into.

      just being picky!

      Of course, root-servers.net is ICANN of course, and then gtld-servers.net is Verisign/NetSol, so we have two levels of evil to replace :)

  64. Think of this as a test by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As has been stated by many people many times, ICANN's power comes from people using their servers. Their power is not backed up by government or guns. It's sheer persuasion and inertia: don't rock the boat, don't change anything. If you break from the herd, you will only isolate yourselves.

    Over the years, idealists and dreamers have talked about the Internet like it's a new country or community, and that We The People own it. Well, here's a test for that assertion. Now we have to get off our lardasses and go through the strenuous exercise of typing new numbers into our /etc/resolv.conf files. I know, it's hard.

    When we throw off ICANN's rather loosely-bound chains, then maybe those Internet "Declaration of Independance" ideas will be more than mere pretentious and immature daydreams, and we'll be Real Men, like our forefathers who had the courage to implement the 1986 Usenet renaming. ;-) Until then, though, ICANN and others like them, have no reason to pay attention to rants on Slashdot. At most, they might look down into our little field and idly wonder what we are "baaah"ing about.

    As for some ideas on how to get from here to there, I recommend Brad Templeton's essays on DNS. He has put some thought into this that goes deeper than, say, the OpenNIC project.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Think of this as a test by Merovign · · Score: 1

      I will look up Brad Templeton.

      I think the basic problem here is what always happens everywhere and everywhen:

      A bunch of clever people build something cool. Other people appreciate that.

      But not everyone is happy. The clever people apply some cool fixes, and even more people are now into the cool idea.

      But not everyone is happy. Now so many unhappy people are involved, the clever people are outnumbered. Sometimes the clever people defensively form an organization. Sometimes the unhappy people form an organization.

      It doesn't matter, because within a few years, the unhappy people are running the organization, because that's what unhappy people do. Happy people don't generally find it neccessary, and clever people can't put up with it for long.

      So now we find ourselves facing the gradual end of the wild and free Internet we know and love (through this and many other means).

      The "What do we do" question is the important one now. If anyone has a more permanent meeting place to discuss this, post it here. Perhaps we need to start building another "common infrastructure" voluntarily alongside the existing one. I admit I have a lot to learn about this.

      Anyone here remember fidoNet? No reason we couldn't do it again. I could afford to donate some time and a couple of machines. Who's up for it?

    2. Re:Think of this as a test by namespan · · Score: 2

      You can, of course, Google for Brad Templeton and DNS, but you can also find his stuff here.

      If we can come up with a way of wresting control of the root servers from ICANN in a way that won't break the existing scheme, then the transition is done...

      --
      Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  65. Re:Thank God for this; it's long overdue. by bheerssen · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. While I whole-heartedly disagree with his viewpoint, at least he has one that he's willing to share. He states his point clearly, and there's no shallow soundbite designed to piss people off. In short, it's not a troll. Just because you moderators disagree with someone's position does not mean that it has no value. So, suck it up and mod this up so that someone may reply with their own take on this guy's position.

    --
    (Score: -1, Stupid)
  66. They tired of the illusion of democracy... by sterno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Welcome to the future of transnational corporate governance ladies and gentlemen. Organizations get set up that are effectively untouchable by any national government, and are unbeholden to passe concepts like democratic representation. I mean right now this organization can pretty much do whatever it wants as long as they don't go far enough to drive all the network administrators in the world to start using a different root name server. And that, my friends, would be pretty damn far.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:They tired of the illusion of democracy... by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2
      Oh, they're not untouchable. The first time they make a decision that upsets people with real power they'll find that out.

      To paraphrase Uncle Joe, how many divisions does ICANN have?

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    2. Re:They tired of the illusion of democracy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ICANN is most definitely not "untouchable by any national government. ICANN is directly touched by the US Dept of Commerce, NTIA. If you want to get governments involved:....surprise, one big one already is. Big improvement?

  67. D'oh, missed link by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  68. I can by dazdaz · · Score: 1

    Public ditches ICANN, oh it's too late.

    Where's the lart when you need it.

  69. Shanghaied! by SwedishChef · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clipper ship sailors used to talk about roving "press gangs" who would round up all able-bodied men they could catch and force them to serve as crew aboard a sailing ship. The term for this was "shanghaied". How appropriate that ICANN has announced, from Shanghai, that they have shanghaied the Internet.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  70. No more elections by quantum+bit · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.

    Anonymous Coward: "But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?"

    The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line.

  71. The ITU should take over ICANN and IANA by ces · · Score: 2

    I know everyone thought this would be a bad idea a few years ago, but it couldn't be any worse than the current ICANN mess. At least there would be more representation.

    The downside is ITU is extremely bureaucratic and not known for public participation. Their standards process also leaves much to be desired compared to the IETF RFC process.

    --
    Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  72. Big Q by Emugamer · · Score: 2

    Is there anything that anyone can throw that has their offical opinions and their reasons why this is happening? All I hear is bad things about ICANN and while it could be true I would like to see another biased source so I can have atleast 2 slants on the same problem.

  73. Learn to spell, moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Politician." If you're so brainless you can't even cope with a simple thing like that, no wonder you think socialism will work.

  74. Western whites-only ethnocentrism strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pull your head out of your genocidal racist ass, please, and contemplate the fact that your nation savagely and causelessly attacked and destroyed Serbia FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

    You call that "democracy"? You're wrong. It's simple fascism.

    Democracy doesn't have to resemble your made-in-America sham. Other, more inclusive forms of democracy -- forms you simply can't understand -- foster a much greater respect for human rights.

    I salute the brave people of Iraq and their courageous resistance, just as I salute the heroes of 9/11 who finally gave the tyrant aggressor a taste of its own medicine.

    1. Re:Western whites-only ethnocentrism strikes again by A+Bugg · · Score: 1

      you salute the BRAVE people of Iraq and their COURAGEOUS resistance, righhhhhhht, yet you are posting as an anonymous coward how fitting.

  75. SOUNDS GREAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's my contribution to the ICANT Revolution:

    ping -f www.icann.org

  76. Re:Thank God for this; it's long overdue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "He states his point clearly, and there's no shallow soundbite designed to piss people off."

    You must of missed the parts in his statement where he called those of differing opinions, parasites, nutcases, and crackpots.

  77. Revolt! by chown · · Score: 1


    Isn't it our duty as "citizens" of the internet to revolt and overthrow what we beleive to be an unjust, ineffective governing body?



    After all, what has collectively been dubbed 'the Internet' should exist primarily for our benefit, not to purely serve commercial needs. And primarily American commercial needs, at that.



    Screw ICANN, who needs 'em? Let's make our own root nameservers. Sure, the only people using them in the near future will probably be the type of people who hang around on slashdot and complain about [Microsoft|ICANN|Lack of Nude Natalie Portman] all day, but who cares? It's still a nice little f***-you in ICANN's direction. Not that they'd care, but it's a good symbolic gesture at the very least.



    This is a completely off-the-cuff statement with practicaly no research to back it up, so please forgive me if there are already movements like this floating around somewhere. If there are, could somebody kindly point me in their direction? If not, who wants to start one? I think it would be an interesting experiment at the very least.



    I'm serious about this, I'm totally down with starting something up, or helping out somebody else who wants to start something up. Reply if you're interested, there's nothing to lose [save me being completely uninformed and missing the bigger picture, which is not entirely unlikely].


  78. Right, Jesus is testing you. Early results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...indicate that you're an asshole.

    Quit fucking the dog and get a job, Q-Tip.

  79. Nobody cares. Too much time on their hands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If these morons had jobs -- REAL jobs, mining salt perhaps, or digging a railway tunnel through the mountains of New Guinea -- they wouldn't be wasting our time and their own jabbering endlessly about perfectly irrelevant goddamn nonsensical bullshit that means ABSOLUTELY nothing to ANYBODY on this great green giddy fucking globe of ours except for one single solitary lonely little asshole shivering under a rock out there in cold wet darkness, a man name of Kark Auderbgach or some retarded fucking cheap imitation of a name like that, a yammering hopping butt-ass-nekkid little monkey hiding in the trees, living on the sour leftover old crap the local baboon population crapped forth last week and left uneaten because it was LOW IN PROTEIN, but Aodorbork needs NO PROTEIN, no sirree, he doesn't need fucking protein for shit-ass fucking squat, that's the truth, buddy. Nope, not him.

    What a dim shitwad. He's pissed off because he pissed so many people off that they finally realized that he's a USELESS ASSHOLE with shit for a brain and a spinal column tied in a fucking KNOT from all the rope he shoves up his dirty little ass IN A VAIN ATTEMPT TO GET CLEAN. But his days of fame are over. He's receding already; can't you hear those shrill squeals dopplering down the scale into the middle distance, fading away, fading, fading, fading... away?

  80. Shut the fuck up, moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nineteen other idiots already said the same damn thing.

    Dogfucker.

  81. Steven Wright didn't say that, asshole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nor does it even remotely resemble any jokes he actually did write.

    If you're too fucking stupid to recognize the man's style, if you're so dimly unaware of anything he's done, why are you fucking attempting to quote him? Eh? SPEAK UP, SHITHEAD. ANWSER ME.

    1. Re:Steven Wright didn't say that, asshole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor does it even remotely resemble any jokes he actually did write.

      According to the Discovery Channel (where I got the quote from), he did.

      If you care to dispute this, dispute it with them, then get back to me.

  82. Oh, shut the fuck up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Listen, duckhole, you've got a goddamn rock up your ass and a brain the size of a peanut. You're not going to "revolt" against anything; you're going to sit on your fat ass eating lard with one hand and pizza with the other, staring glassy-eyed at tentacle pr0n and drooling down your fucking shirt. Just like you always did. Just like you always will. You're not Thomas Paine; you're a slashbot.

  83. ICANN has officially become IR-relevant ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2



    As an ordinary member (?) of ICANN, I am sad to say that ICANN has officially voted itself out of any relevance !

    ICANN was started as an organization representing the Net users. Now, it has become just another word that meant nothing.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  84. OpenNIC is not such a good idea. by Gendou · · Score: 2

    I'm dismayed by the growing number of alternative (fake, incompatible) root servers such as OpenNIC and AlterNIC that are springing up these days. I get a continuous flood of spam trying to sell me domains in non-existent TLDs, or, rather, TLDs that DO exist, but only in one particular alternative root. You and I know better than to fall for these deceptive scans, but when an average person gets an e-mail saying "Buy an exciting .sex or .xxx domain today for just $199.95!" they won't know that their exciting new domain purchase will be inaccessible to 99.999% of Internet users. You might think that this kind of practice borders on fraud; I think that it is fraud.

    Let me tell you why I think that OpenNIC and similar entities are a bad and dangerous idea.

    Think of the phone system . . . when you dial a number, it rings at a particular location because there is a central numbering plan that ensures that each telephone number is unique. The DNS works in a similar way. If telephone numbers or domain names were not globally unique, phone calls or e-mail intended for one person might go to someone else with the same number or domain name. Without uniqueness, both systems would be unpredictable and therefore unreliable.

    Ensuring predictable results from any place on the Internet is called "universal resolvability." It is a critical design feature of the DNS, one that makes the Internet the helpful, global resource that it is today. Without it, the same domain name might map to different Internet locations under different circumstances, which would only cause confusion.

    When you send an e-mail to your Aunt Sally, do you care who receives it?

    Do you care if it goes to your Uncle Juan instead? Wait a minute...do you have an Uncle Juan? Then whose Uncle Juan received it? Do you care if it reaches Aunt Sally if you send it from work but my Uncle Juan if you send it from home?

    Of course you care who receives it . . . that's why you wrote it in the first place. Whether you're doing business or sending personal correspondence, you want to be certain that your message gets to the intended addressee.

    If at any point the DNS must make a choice between two identical domain names with different IP addresses, the DNS would not function. It would not know how to resolve the domain name. When a DNS computer queries another computer and asks, "are you the intended recipient of this message?", "yes" and "no" are acceptable answers, but "maybe" is not.

    This is where ICANN comes in . . . ICANN is responsible for managing and coordinating the DNS to ensure universal resolvability.

    ICANN is the global, non-profit, private-sector coordinating body acting in the public interest. ICANN ensures that the DNS continues to function effectively - by overseeing the distribution of unique numeric IP addresses and domain names. Among its other responsibilities, ICANN oversees the processes and systems that ensure that each domain name maps to the correct IP address.

    Behind the scenes, the story becomes a little more complicated.

    In an Internet address - such as icann.org - the .org part is known as a Top Level Domain, or TLD. So-called "TLD registry" organizations house online databases that contain information about the domain names in that TLD. The .org registry database, for example, contains the Internet whereabouts - or IP address - of icann.org. So in trying to find the Internet address of icann.org your computer must first find the .org registry database. How is this done?

    At the heart of the DNS are 13 special computers, called root servers. They are coordinated by ICANN and are distributed around the world. All 13 contain the same vital information - this is to spread the workload and back each other up.

    Why are these root servers so important? The root servers contain the IP addresses of all the TLD registries - both the global registries such as .com, .org, etc. and the 244 country-specific registries such as .fr (France), .cn (China), etc. This is critical information. If the information is not 100% correct or if it is ambiguous, it might not be possible to locate a key registry on the Internet. In DNS parlance, the information must be unique and authentic. Let us look at how this information is used.

    Scattered across the Internet are thousands of computers - called "Domain Name Resolvers" or just plain "resolvers" - that routinely cache the information they receive from queries to the root servers. These resolvers are located strategically with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or institutional networks. They are used to respond to a user's request to resolve a domain name - that is, to find the corresponding IP address.

    So what happens to a user's request to reach our familiar friend at icann.org? The request is forwarded to a local resolver. The resolver splits the request into its component parts. It knows where to find the .org registry - remember, it had copied that information from a root server beforehand - so it forwards the request over to the .org registry to find the IP address of icann.org. This answer is forwarded back to the user's computer. And we're done. It's that simple! The domain name icann.org has been "resolved"!

    Why do we need the resolvers? Why not use the root servers directly? After all, they contain essentially the same information. The answer is for reasons of performance. The root servers could not handle hundreds of billions of requests a day! It would slow users down.

    It is important to remember the central and critical role played by the root servers that store information about the unique, authoritative root. Confusion would result if there were two TLDs with the same name: which one did the user intend? The beauty of the Internet architecture is that it ensures there is a unique, authoritative root, so that there is no chance of ambiguity.

    Anyone can create a root system similar to the unique authoritative root managed by ICANN. Many people and entities have. Some of these are purely private (inside a single corporation, for example) and are insulated from having any effect on the DNS. Some, however, overlap the authoritative global DNS root by incorporating the unique, authoritative root information, and then adding new pseudo-TLDs that have not resulted from the consensus-driven process by which official new TLDs are created through ICANN. The alternate root operators persuade some users to have their resolvers "point" to their alternate root instead of the authoritative root. Others (New.net is a recent example) also create browser plug-ins and other software workarounds to accomplish similar effects. The one uniform fact about all these efforts is that these pseudo-TLDs are not included in the authoritative root managed by ICANN and, thus, are not resolvable by the vast majority of Internet users.

    There are many potential problems caused by these unofficial, alternate root efforts to exploit the stability and reach of the authoritative root. These efforts are often promoted by those unwilling to abide by the consensus policies established by the Internet community, policies designed to ensure the continued stability and utility of the DNS.

    For example:

    First, the names of some of these pseudo-TLDs could overlap TLD names in the authoritative root or those that appear in other alternate roots. Our familiar friend icann.org could appear in two different roots. Your e-mail to Aunt Sally could end up with my Uncle Juan.

    Second, the unknowing users might not be linked to one of these alternate roots and not be able to reach these pseudo-TLD addresses at all. Your e-mail to Aunt Sally could end up as a dead-letter.

    Third, those purchasing domain names in these pseudo-TLDs may not be aware of these and other consequences of the lack of universal resolvability. Or they may be under the impression that they are experiencing universal resolvability when in fact they are not. They may be very upset to learn that the names they registered are also being used by others, or that a new TLD in the authoritative root will not include those names.

    These problems are not significant so long as these alternate roots remain very small, that is, house few domain names with little potential for conflict. But if they should ever attract many users, the problems would become much more serious, and could affect the stability and reliability of the DNS itself. Users would lose confidence in the utility of the Internet.

    ICANN's mission is to protect and preserve the stability, integrity and utility - on behalf of the global Internet community - of the DNS and the authoritative root ICANN was established to manage. ICANN has no role to play with alternate roots so long as these and other analogous efforts do not create instabilities in the DNS or otherwise impair the stability of the authoritative root. But ICANN does have a role to play in educating and informing about threats to the Internet's reliability and stability.

    ICANN is a consensus development body for the global Internet community, and its focus is the development of consensus policies relating to the single authoritative root and the DNS. These policies include those that allow the orderly introduction of new TLDs.

    There are those-including operators of commercialized alternate roots-who pursue unilateral actions outside the ICANN consensus-development process. Many hope to circumvent these processes by claiming to establish some prior right to a top-level domain name. ICANN, however, recognizes no such prior claim. ICANN will continue to reflect the public policy consensus of the global Internet community over the private claims of the few who try to bypass this consensus.

    In Short . . . . . .

    Just as there is a single root for telephone numbers internationally, there must be a single authoritative root for the Internet, administered in the public interest. OpenNIC is a serious threat to the future survivability of the Internet.

    1. Re:OpenNIC is not such a good idea. by DoctorFrog · · Score: 2
      The problem is that "our familiar friend" ICANN is not behaving in any consensus-driven way, nor are the policies it promulgates in the public interest of most Internet users. The problem wouldn't arise if they were the omnibenevolent organization you seem to feel they are.

      So what's the worst that could happen if one or more of the alternative roots gained significant mindshare from ICANN and there was a forking of the Internet? Some method might have to be worked out whereby you specified which root you patronize.

      That would be inconvenient, certainly, and it would certainly be better if that could be avoided (which ICANN could easily accomplish, were they at all genuinely interested in doing so), but accomplishing it would not be all that difficult. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of threatening the entire ball of wax.

      In short, no, OpenNIC is not a serious threat to the future survivability of the Internet. To the extent that it threatens to inconvenience Internet users, the blame lies squarely on ICANN's doorstep for failing to meet the needs of its constituency.

  85. Can we do without ICANN? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    I'm curious as to what exactly would happen if ICANN vanished off the face of the earth or everyone simply started ignoring them. As far as I can tell:

    We'd need alternate root servers. This, at least, is easy, as OpenNIC and others provide excellent, alternate systems (OpenNIC in particular is *extremely* democratic -- nearly the opposite of ICANN).

    We'd need a new centralized point for distribution of whois server information.

    We'd need a new group of people to agree on which addresses should be allocated in the IP address space.

    We'd need a new group of people to agree on well-known port numbers (and provide a centralized distribution point for this information) and a host of other numbers related to protocols. MIME types and MIBs fit in here. I've always thought it a shame that there isn't a centralized magic number registry, so if ICANN was replaced, I think it'd be nice to have a magic number database also available.

    Anyone see any other problems with just ignoring ICANN?

    1. Re:Can we do without ICANN? by Hobophile · · Score: 1
      AFAIK very few of these things that you assert fall under the ICANN umbrella are actually handled by ICANN.

      I believe ICANN only controls the .com, .org, and .net TLDs (and maybe some of the newer ones they've added). That's it.

      For the rest -- IP address allocation, MIB assignments -- you go to ARIN, the American Registry for Internet Numbers.

      Port numbers are either defined in RFCs (for core network services) or simply picked at random by application developers.

      Ignoring ICANN is simply not going to happen, because those with a stake in the current system -- everyone with a .com, .net, and .org domain -- are simply never going to agree to simultaneously move to a different organization offering those domains.

    2. Re:Can we do without ICANN? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      I believe IANA handles these, and ICANN runs IANA.

    3. Re:Can we do without ICANN? by Hobophile · · Score: 1
      I believe IANA handles these, and ICANN runs IANA.

      I learn something new every day. Thanks for the info.

  86. FidoNet by DoctorFrog · · Score: 2
    Anyone here remember fidoNet? No reason we couldn't do it again.

    No need to redo it, the original is still around.

  87. Switch by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

    Not a problem, getting people to switch. All we need is Ellen Feiss to speak on our behalf.

  88. minor correction by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

    Universal

    Corporation for

    Assigning

    Names and

    Numbers via

    Outright

    Totalitarianism

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  89. Think "Area codes" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Multiple roots are a fairly easy user interface problem to solve.

    You allow the user to configure a list of domain roots. Like so...

    Root: 1 Name: ICANN Servers: ...
    Root: 4353 Name: OpenNIC Servers: ...

    ISPs can use a tranparent proxy to cache high volume roots. That way, users can still reach out and access roots without their ISPs involvement.

    When users enter a URL, their list is scanned and if more than one option is found, a chooser list is presented.

    So, they might see something like this...

    Location: http:://www.bugme.com
    Which www.bugme.com would you like:
    ICANN
    AlterNIC
    OpenNIC

    This would be a fairly simple RFP. We could modify URLs to include a numerical root name. The end-user text name to the number would be user defined -- converting the need for yet another naming v. trademark oversight problem into one more akin to TCP port numbering. So, ICANN might be root server "1"...

    http::/1//www.bugme.com

    Application libraries the use DNS could easily allow the user's table to be resolved locally, so if a user likes to call DNS root #4353 "AlterNIC" they could code...

    http:/AlterNIC//www.bigme.com

    Problem solved. We've returned competiton to what is artificial monopoly.

    If we leave ICANN with the "default" URL encoding (http://ww.bigme.com), then this is upwardly compatible. If an old broswer runs into a alternate root URL it will, rightly, claim it is unable to resolve the domain.

    1. Re:Think "Area codes" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If we leave ICANN with the "default" URL encoding

      Actually, we could add "priority" into the search list...

      Root: 1 Priority: 1 Name: ICANN Servers: ...
      Root: 4353 Name: OpenNIC Servers: ...

      This way, a chooser list need not be offered if the name could be resolved by any of the prioritized root servers. Roots with a priority would be scanned in order, system would just use the first server able to resolve the name.

  90. Cut'n'paste rebuttals by sstamps · · Score: 1

    This person posted the EXACT SAME response to my previous endorsement of OpenNIC. It's mainly a "chicken little" rebuttal, most of which is nothing more than a cadre of strawman issues. He does have a few minor points, but nothing which would make switching to an alternative root anything like the disaster he prognosticates.

    I've got a nice, long rebuttal to Gendou's rebuttal, but I have to finish cleaning it up first; the first version was a little, ah, "hot".

    --
    -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
    1. Re:Cut'n'paste rebuttals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a nice, long rebuttal to Gendou's rebuttal, but I have to finish cleaning it up first; the first version was a little, ah, "hot".

      That's truly sad. Just let it go, already.

  91. IPv6, dammit! by r.muk · · Score: 1

    "At the same time, if we truly have the will to dump ICANN, and we all do it at once (or at least the most commonly used nameservers do it at once) their power can be totally stripped from them."

    == This is a political, not a technical problem.

    == A shrewd political maneuver would be to use the transition to IPv6 .. a lot of things will change in the process .. to make sure that ICANN does not retain anything like its present monopoly power.