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

Re:BRING DOWN ICANN

[Sheetrock]

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. ICANN, like any other organization that is in ultimate control of a resource, can't please everybody, but as mentioned in the article breaking it up would make the domain name system more worthless than IP addresses.

I think there are a lot of people with business interests in getting a piece of ICANN for themselves, but giving it to them would hamper the interests of everybody who enjoys a stable Internet. Most people who dig beneath the anti-ICANN arguments to look at the facts and logic behind the situation come to realize that it is a necessary evil to cede control to one entity rather than trying to run DNS by committee.

Down with ICANN... but what next...

[MosesJones]

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 ?

Re:Down with ICANN... but what next...

[syle]

I, for one, know that Microsoft is the only company who can be trusted to control the future of the internet.

We should let them control it. After all, their vision is the vision of a peacful humanity, living in harmony where all the MS-Citizens have equal rights to whatever MS-TLD they choose, and the MS-DNS would happily MS-Route all the MS-IP packets to their perfect destinations.

Really, isn't that an idealing MS-World we can all be happy with?

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

[arkanes]

Translation: The Internet has spread expanded and been encouraged, and ICANN has no doubt helped, but at the same time it's enormous fuckups have engendered massive ill-will in the Internet community.

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.

A delicate little flower, my delicate little ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.