Slashdot Mirror
DoC to Extend ICANN's Control of IANA
Luminous Coward writes "I first saw this on The Register. Kevin Murphy of Computerwire reports: The US Department of Commerce last week quietly published a document detailing its decision to "sole-source" the contract for the so-called IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) function to ICANN, as opposed to opening the contract for competitive bidding. ICANNWatch explains why this is a bad idea. They also report that the ccTLDs and the Internet Multicasting Service have expressed interest in running IANA."
Because god knows the UN has proven to be a wise organization, capable of managing almost all the worlds affairs. Preserving peace, etc. And nobody would ever dare to do things that would go against UN decisions, or would sidestep the UN entirely.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The problem that makes the UN impotent is not the fact that many countries are ruled by dictators (the idea behind the UN is to be a forum for *all* countries, not just democracies).
One of the biggest problems is the US's behaviour. For years the US refused to pay its quota, and has only paid its debt with the UN when they wanted something from it.
US's respect for UN resolutions is not very good either, and the UN does not have the capability of enforcing the resolutions, that's just impossible. Just two examples here:
Now, how could the UN be useful if the single most powerful and influent nation in the world does not want to know anything about it, except if it is for its own benefit??
I was just thinking that perhaps it should be handed over to the ITU. If they can get the world's phone systems talking to one another, the Internet should be a piece of cake in comparison. (You ever look at telephony protocols? You don't want to. Trust me.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I think it's a mistake to think of "the UN". The UN is really a loose grouping of many related organizations. UNESCO and UNHCR are very different to the Security Council and the General Assembly.
that Jon Postel was still with us. Then, something like this wouldn't have happened.
Perspective is a funny thing. What can be classified as "life threatening" depends highly on the level of integration of whatever technology we happen to be discussing. Since computer networking, and in particular global networking has become so vital to the economies of the world (and hell, life as we know it. I met my g/f online first, long before we met face to face), it is not surprising that the people who are currently in power wish to make sure they have a firm hold on it. But, as always, government control does cut both ways. So is it life threatening? No. Is it threatening to way of life? Perhaps.
There are lives at stake here!
for everyone to always remember, that icann, or any other number or name registry only gets any power because people choose to use it as a reference. I can set up an IP network of any size I like, and address it however I like, and anyone else joining up with me is free to do what they want as well.
I'm not saying "we can just ignore icann.. let's have anarchy..".. but, ultimately, if they go too far, the major backbone providers can simply ignore them. As long as we all play off roughly the same page, stuff will still work just fine.
Its just a couple computers strung together with some wire, air waves, and carrying a few bits.
The printing press only produced a bunch of letters on paper, and look what it has achieved. Don't trivialize communication.
Because god knows the UN has proven to be a wise organization, capable of managing almost all the worlds affairs. Preserving peace, etc.
Hmm... how many World Wars were there before the United Nations? Two?
And how many have there been since? None... (yet)