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."
Do they ever stop harassing and stopping Name Resolution? Hell, they KEPT DOCUMENTS FROM THEIR OWN PRESIDENT, and he eventually quit.
OH, and how many 'public' members are still on the ICANT^HN?? None.
Okay what do _you_ want to see replace ICANN, what would make _you_ happy.
Then look at the real players at this event and think. Is the issue that ICANN has too much control or that...
These people, corporations and goverments want a slice of the pie and to dictate it all themselves.
Now given how these things tend to go I wouldn't bet large amounts of Turkish Lira, let alone Dollars, Euros or Pounds that if ICANN is toppled that the resulting quango isn't just a collection of "interested parties" aka "the usual suspects" who try and define the rules for themselves. Lets face it this goes in with the copyright issues in the US, the WTO "screw the 3rd world" and corporatisation of politics and policy.
ICANN might be total and utter nutters and a total pain in the arse. But are you REALLY sure that what comes next won't be worse ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Could it really be that /.ers are going and reading the article???
If so, today, 6th March 2003 will be remembered as a special day in the history of slashdot ;^)
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
Consider this quote from the article: Many country domain managers are furious at ICANN's constant efforts to get them to sign up to a new set of ICANN terms and conditions - often under threat of withholding vital services - that would effectively hand over control of their domain to the organisation.
This an issue that people all over the world face , both collective entities and individuals, as more and more centralized authorities attempt to both aggregate and control information, as well as any associated privileges it may confer.
While some might argue that a centralized authority is necessary for an organized, well-structured effort, I'd point out that centralized authorities are a form of power and control. Human nature being what it is, this often leads to an effort to acquire more of the same, regardless of its effect on any initial objectives. ICANN should be looking for ways to centralize control over matters related to manage a set of general guidelines within which each member must operate, while still allowing them an appropriate degree of autonomy. It all boils down to an issue of sovreignty, and how this will manifest itself with respect to the internet.
Do you trust such an agency?
See for yourself. http://www.itu.int/
(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 Internet is a very special flower in the garden of the world's communities. One that needs continuous and careful watering."
Bwahaa. The Internet is like Kudzu, overrunning and strangling all the other networks in the garden, and grafting into them and transforming them, borg-like, into more kudzu.
ICANN should stick to its technical mission -- keeping track of the names and numbers.
You are porbably addressing the exact arguments of the ccTLDs with your statement! What if a country does not wish to have a whois service? Your approach is that they must, the countries is that it is up to them to decide whether or not they want to implement it. Look at this page to see how EU laws regarding data protection made the Irish domain registry remove whois. If we have one world government to rule them all then perhaps we can start to allow ICANN (or their replacement) to govern all the TLDs but until then each ccTLD should be allowed to run intself under any rules it desires. If China/France/Namibia chooses to make their TLD incompatible with the rest of the world why not? DNS is not TCP/IP and as long as a network complies with TCP/IP standards then it is on the net regardless of whether or not they use a DNS system at all or even one which is compatible with the rest of the net. It is up to each hostmaster to determine how they want to progress and whose rules they wish to submit to for any dns resolution they may require.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source