Slashdot Mirror
ICANN vs. ccTLDs in Geneva
Gallowglass writes "The Register is reporting on an interesting meeting in Geneva. To quote from the article, 'Why the huge fuss? Because the meeting threatened to turn into a caucus where rising resentment against ICANN and its attempt to stamp ultimate authority over the Internet could have escalated into international agreement and action.' Didn't quite, but the natives are restless. The article has links to all presentations given at the two day meeting, and also an audio of the event at the bottom of the article. It's also a good summary of the controversy and of its history."
Okay, this doesn't make much sense. If they expanded and encouraged the Internet, wouldn't that be a good thing? It seems to me that if they expanded and encouraged the Internet, they'd be seen as good people. That sentence from the article makes it sound like it's a bad thing. The Internet gives people access to a wealth of information and helps them do their shopping, banking, etc. It's just my opinion that if they've helped more people get that ability, they shouldn't have this whole "huge cost to their reputation" thing.
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
What's the alternative? We need a central authority on domain name issues to ensure that standards are kept and every country is on an equal footing when disputes occur.
.de can resolve domain names in .ru, .us, uk, etc. Those countries can then resolve disputes within their domains according to their own laws, without the heavy hand of ICANN and its injustice-for-money-your-way resolution approach.
.com, .org, .edu, etc. the body responsible for administering the treaty can be used. This body should most emphatically NOT be ICANN, whose record of abuses and thuggary is both appalling and enormous.
... beyond mutual agreements to avoid top level domain name collisions. Frankly, I'd like to see a situation in which anyone can create any toplevel domain, on a first come, first serve basis, and have it be resolved by everyone. Sort of an OpenNIC on steroids, without the authority (democratic in OpenNIC's case, authoritarian in ICANN's), but that is probably too much to hope for.
... it is the current status quo, and should remain so.
Absolute nonsense. All we need is a treaty that top level domains will be handled in a compatible fashion, so that folsk in
For international domains, such as
There really is no need for a central authority whatsoever
Nevertheless, national autonomy in ccTLDs is neither inappropriate nor too much to hope for
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"But are you REALLY sure that what comes next won't be worse ?"
Are you REALLY sure that what comes next won't be better ?
maybe a better question would be "Are you REALLY sure that doing nothing is better than trying to change or to replace the actual system ? "
#include "coucou.h"
truly, IEEE rulez. ICANN can't, so eventually there will be a smorgasboard of domain jurispudence with many flags of convenience ... democracy scales well, whew
2tec ~ makes connections
Hell, they KEPT DOCUMENTS FROM THEIR OWN PRESIDENT, and he eventually quit.
Karl Auerbach was elected to the Board of Directors (At-Large Representative for Canada and the United States), he was not the president.
Karl did win his case with support from the EFF.
Stuart Lynn is President and CEO of ICANN. He is the one that is attempting to control ICANN through both day-to-day operations as President, and the Board as CEO. Stuart seems very intent in increases his power, and his domain of power, the role and responsibilities of ICANN.
I am miffed that IANA was assigned by the US Dept. of Commerce to ICANN, and not the Internet Society / Internet Engineering Taskforce (IETF)
Now that virtually all WHOIS clients support redirection to the WHOIS servers of various registrars using the "Whois Server:" line it should be easy for whois.internic.net to send redirections to ccTLD whios server so we could finally have a single WHOIS server that answers all requests.
Of course, with the current situation I don't expect they would actually implement such as scheme.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
I want an automated domain registration system. Everyone gets one domain name for free. Your second domain name costs something reasonable, similar to current prices, but everything after that increases is price exponentially. If you want 3 domain name its going to cost you like $20 a month. If you want 50, it'll cost you possibly millions. That sort of thing.
(spoiler: i probably don't know what im talking about)
in my mind the best solution would be to hand control to an org with a board of appointed members each representing their own nation (say, the Ministar de Intarweb for Erewhon);
such as the UN. Proposals and issues could then be dealt with on a consensual basis, and organisations concerned with TLDs based in those countries could then communicate their issues to their Minister/Spokesman/whatever
funding for tech expertise etc etc can also come through those channels
the UN makes consensual decisions pretty well (at least as well as it can), why not model after it?
<B>note to self:</B> <I>post as html</I>
The article quotes SG Utsumi saying that the Internet should be considered a public utility.
/. yet, maybe because many people seem allergic to any regulation of the networks. But I do beleive in the multilateral process and maybe it's time to see what it can do for the Internet.
On one hand, this bring me the image of PSTN monopolies of the 70's, with the abuses and inefficiencies.
On the other hand, regulated QoS levels, mandatory public access and connectivity mandate, common carrier obligation are all things that the broadband industry could use right now.
I wonder if the Internet is not mature enough to desserve the status of public utility, like the power grid, the water network, sewers, etc.
I think it would help to put emphasis on the "common good infrastructure" bit. it would prevent AOL or other providers to use their provider business to leverage their content business. It would ultimately help competition on the service provider side by giving an even playing field on the connectivity providing side.
It's a topic I haven't seen addressed on
The ITU didn't try to dominate the Internet. They created a set of specs for a WAN that had nothing to do with the Internet. However, the Internet came along with a simpler, cheaper, more elegant approach and made them irrelevant.