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."

Comments

ICANN's reputation

[Alcohol Fueled]

"ICANN has achieved the goal of expanding and encouraging the Internet but at huge cost to its reputation."

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.

Re:ICANN's reputation

[Anonymous Coward]

What they oughta do is turn ICANN over to the United Nations.

FREEDOM is a valid alternative to AUTHORITARIANISM

[FreeUser]

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.

Absolute nonsense. All we need is a treaty that top level domains will be handled in a compatible fashion, so that folsk in .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.

For international domains, such as .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.

There really is no need for a central authority whatsoever ... 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.

Nevertheless, national autonomy in ccTLDs is neither inappropriate nor too much to hope for ... it is the current status quo, and should remain so.

Re:BRING DOWN ICANN

[plcurechax]

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)

what about a UN-model organisation?

[collapser]

(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?