Slashdot Mirror
Why ICANN Needs Fresh Blood
scubacuda writes "Akash Kapur of CircleID has written an editorial, Why ICANN Needs Fresh Blood: A Deeper View . Kapur writes, "ICANN was born amid the heady days of Internet euphoria. Its early promise to be the world's first global democracy (not to mention an entirely new form of governance) was a product of that euphoria. But like so many dot-coms, ICANN quickly succumbed to the hubris of its own vision. If ICANN has been a troubled organization from the start, then that is in no small measure because it over-promised at the start....What's needed is fresh blood -- new personalities, and new ideas to break the ideological impasse." Kapur lists cancelled at-large elections, the authoritarianism and secrecy of ICANN discussion, and the narrowing possibility that ICANN could represent a new model of governance as indicators that global democracy has failed."
So this is supposed to be some utopian society? How WOULD an online government work?
ICANN needs fresh blood because it's a frickin' vampire!
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I think ICANN has too much blood. It do better with less, as in zero blood. ICANN would perform much better if it were composed of dry, harmless, bones.
I think the only thing that can help ICANN is a complete reorganization. Every rule and policy should be gone over by a 3rd party. The Internet is growing way to big and way to fast for ICANN to properly handle their job and they are falling very short. With their current policies I think they are hurting future growth of the medium.
If you think of ICANN as Institute for CANNibals, the title "Why ICANN Needs Fresh Blood" suddenly makes a lot of sense, but in a totally different way!
There is little debate among outsiders of the position that ICANN is in resperate need of being disbanded and redesigned from the ground up. The question is, - since there is little or no oversight of the organization - how would lawmakers go about tearing down the golem they've created. It's not simply a matter of U.S. law anymore. I'm not certain that ICANN could be disbanded and redesigned using anything less than an international treaty, but IANAL, so perhaps someone with expertise in this area could speak to the issue of how change would be brought about (which, is equally as interesting as what those changes would be).
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Just look at the United States. The first time through, they put together the Articles of Confederation. After a few years, it was clear that wasn't working. They reorganized the government in the form of the Constitution, and it's worked fairly well since.
Their site is almost as bad as their service.
The Political Programmer
I remember when I used to enter "billing@internic.net" as my e-mail address for every service (before they started requiring confirmation) and signed them up for all the free offers. :)
--
est modus in rebus
is an international organization to oversee the administration of ICANN.
If that means ICANN's blood, then I entirely agree. ;)
It took me a long time to realize this, but the Internet qua Internet will NOT change the world for the better.
If you were part of the upper echelon in the Soviet Union, would YOU want democracy? Would you give up the security--your nice apartment, caviar dinners, and KGB contacts--to live in a country where you didn't know what your lot/role in life would be?
Once you look at it this way, everything from the way that closed regimes limit netizens' access to information makes to the way cable and software companies (namely, Microsoft) "act strategically" makes sense.
People/governments/regimes have worked hard to make their way to the top. They're not about to put in place policies or architectures in place that threaten that hegemony.
My question to the
ICANN has nothing to do with web standards. They're an internet organization that deals with addresses and domain names.
..ICANN sounded like an authoritarian regime from the start. Or, at the least, a republic.
;)
"and the narrowing possibility that ICANN could represent a new model of governance as indicators that global democracy has failed."
Democracy? I'm not sure it has failed. You see, democracy is just a more polite word for anarchy. I snicker to myself every time I hear someone preaching about how the US brings 'democracy' to people, for example.
What we bring is the glory of Rome's republic.
Err, right, getting back on topic.. The internet is still a democracy. If you don't like ICANN, figure out a better way of doing things. The world will follow.
Failure of standards and control groups is the surest sign that democracy is alive and well, for true democracy answers to none.
Take a look at the current leadership, and the prospect that America is about to get a visit from any effing terrorist on the entire planet, and decide whether you think it's working "fairly well".
What this country needs is... I don't know. More democracy I guess. Fewer butterfly ballots though. That nice Mr Gore as President would do for a start.
This is the fucking internet, go outside for once you lazy fucks!
The design of the DNS system makes ICANN unnecessary. The whole idea of ICANN was founded by people who did not understand how this was so for the purpose of establishing privilege ( as in from Latin privilegium, a law affecting one person : privus, single, alone + lex, leg-, law ) for certain minorities to exert control over the DNS namespace.
Large corporations and cadres of lawyers are just as happy as the rest of us about domain squatting. They are even less happy about the whole somethingSUCKS.com court decisions which (by interpereting the US Constitution 1st Amendment) allow people to set up very spiffy parody sites to lampoon their hard-fought corporate images. How are they going to get control of this nasty thorn in their side?
The correct way for those people to solve their problem is to "fork" the DNS root and create their own set of root servers supervised by their lawyers. They could then begin boycotting the original root servers' registrars, and require end users to use DNS servers that submit to their authority. The first problem with that is how so many corporations will fail to agree on enough details to let that happen. The second problem is that anyone could selectively forward queries to their servers for some lookups, and forward queries to other peoples' servers for other lookups. Each DNS server decides who to delegate what authority to. Each end-user could theoretically run their own DNS server without ever needing to query a root server.
The bottom line is that DNS is anarchy, but there is a de facto consensus to trust several root server operators to be cool. The first step to accomplishing what the IANA wants to do is to convince people to revoke trust in the existing root servers. Instead, they keep trying to bully the root server operators, who roll their eyes and sigh..
The real risk that the IANA faces is that the DNS root server authority gets institutionalized in a widely publicised and debated way. If they can't weasel their way into control quietly, they risk the door being be slammed in their face by a new consensus formed out of "informed consent". It's like the UN where everybody has a veto, and it is terribly uncertain how the vote will go.
The real reason the ICANN is such a joke is that the tootpaste is out of the tube. People are widely aware of the attempted power grab, and the important people know how futile that is once it is widely known. ICANN would only be allowed to operate if it behaved identically to the current system, which begs the question: why are we fixing it if it isn't broke?
Pay attention to Verisgn.com (who bought NSI). They will attempt to leverage DNS authority with their x509 business. Look at how BIND9 signed-zones are supposed to work. It isn't just ICANN we should be worried about.
Learn PGP keyring management. It is complicated. It is very worthwhile though. The PGP trust management system is our defense. We should seek to protect the right to that system in the Supreme Court of the US under the Bill of Rights.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
It's not that global democracy won't work, but those with the most to loose from this arraingment didn't just keel over and let it happen. Now that it might take "work" to make the vision happen, most are bailing on the process.
Those of us that consider freedom to be important and the democratic process only one of many means to that end are not surprised by this. Global governance on a world as ethnically diverse as this one is almost innately authoritarian. The reason that the US model of representative republican rule works so well is because there are no fundamental differences between the cultures of the 50 states. The EU's and UN's proponents in some cases don't understand that, but largely don't care because they have "more important" goals like knocking the US down a peg.
I rarely agree with anything put out by CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network), but one of their commentators said something like this about one world government: "It will be run by rich elitists who consider it their so-called burden to make the 'tough choices' for the ignorant masses." That describes the situation perfectly. We are ignorant peasants at best, savages at worst to most of the global elite. Don't kid yourselves that global government is possible on Earth.
This reminds me of the so-called international law. Law means that it applies to everyone. A treaty doesn't work that way. The Geneva Conventions and all that jazz aren't true law, they're just that, conventions. If the US never signed them, the US would not have to follow them. The international law has always been a slightly more civilized version of the "law of the jungle." It is just the most powerful imposing their vision of a better world on the rest. Those that complain about the US not giving a rat's ass about the UN, why should we? The UN has libya and the Sudan in prominent positions including the "human rights commission." A terrorist state and a genocidal state respectively!!!!
Give up on the idea of international law and government. It is better that every war criminal get a slap on the wrist in their own country (if it's an American, they'll probably get executed in the US depending on the offense) than have people pulled before a global government. We live in a world where American Conservatives are the progressives and the international socialists the reactionaries. If Saddamn got tried in an American court, he'd have 2x the rights he'd have under the World *cough*Kangaroo*cough* Court. Isn't it ironic that the so-called "progressives," the left, have created an unaccountable world court that gives less rights than the judiciary created by the American right? Of course it isn't, the concept of a court is still new in the left's mind. We should applaud their efforts, it's a step up from gulags, logais and NAZI concentation camps.
More regulation of ICANN is necessary. It should be forced open no matter what is required for that to happen. ICANN is a good place to start with dismantling the unaccountable global government in the making.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Holy fuck Tony Blair, what the HELL are you doing?
The right thing!
Everyone hold hands. This spell is going to be creepy, but it's got to be done. Whatever you do, don't touch the sacred vessel---static discharge, y'know. Everyone's shovels ready? Ew. I just horked up Esther Dyson. Okay, here we go. Remember, as soon as the spell's complete, we go dig up Jon Postel.
Why ICANN Needs Fresh Blood: A Deeper View
Clearly, this has nothing to do with internet governance. I don't need to RTFA to know that it is a bizarro Barbarian at the Gates moment where Carl Icahn kicks his heroin habit with help from Keith Richards and Lestat and then goes on to do a leveraged buyout of AOL.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Let's see what does ICANN actualy do, well what does it do that we actualy need? .aol and the root server says to AOL who is this, its no biggie.
It assigns numbers, IP numbers that's realy all we need from them. As far as names anyone can do names, it would take the average unix/linux sysadmin what about 15 - 20 minutes to put their own Domain Name Server online? All they have to do is poll other name servers, example someone types in
The biggest thing that ICANN seems to be doing is promoting an artificial scarcity of domain names, and speculation in those is about as dead as dodo birds. There are plenty of alternative root servers out there. Start making ICANN as irrelavant as possible and I guaranty they change just to protect their turf
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
At the same time Internet existence is not protected by proper international laws. And now we begin digging much deeper problems. The modern international law system is obsolete.
Recent events in Iraq demonstrate it. One arrogant leader of the most power country ignores all international laws in order to get rid from the other arrogant leader. It's like I am telling to police officer: "don't interfer, I will be dealing with my theaft by myself".
Internet in the same danger. If US govt will begin disconnecting countries from US, while other countries will not support it - there will be lots of problem with traffic, Internet will be bad, but it will survive. But if Mr President will decide that embargo is not a proper mean any more will start a cyber-war or something like that - that will be a beginning of the end of the Internet.
What I am telling, that all attempts to rebuild ICANN will be useless wasting of time and efforts (if not dangerous) until it will be protected by proper system of internation laws, which is broken today with a great help from US President.
Less is more !
Sounds like someone else purchased too much into the dot.bomb foolishness. Come on, ICANN as a government model? A failure of democracy? He should stop smokin whatever he is smokin.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
A few years ago everyone here on Slashdot was all happy about ICANN. Because they all hated the "evil" Network Solutions. I thought ICANN was a bad idea, but everyone was so against Network Solutions they couldn't see it. Now you have to live with it.
and democracy? haha, that`s like bush and democracy... they just don`t fit together...
-------
Starwars Galaxies
Well, I guess it would be someone who likes to read the Council of Conservative Citizens' web site. I guess Trent Lott has a lot more time to spam Slashdot now that he's no longer Senate majority leader.
Here we have two interesting subjects: 1) the much-lampooned ICANN, and 2) our writer Akash Kapur himself. In 2000, Kapur conducted an interview with author VS Naipaul, the transcript of which is intensely -- and unintentionally -- humorous.
t ml
m
Naipaul tells Kapur that all the questions Kapur has faxed him for the interview are inane. Naipaul further instructs Kapur to go read Naipaul's books instead of wasting the author's time by asking him to repeat himself. Much of this transcript also ran in the UK newspaper "The Guardian" -- I distinctly rememer having hiccups all morning from laughing through my coffee.
Two links on our two interesting subjects:
1) ICANN -- the movie!
http://www.paradigm.nu/icann/icannstage.h
2) The transcript of Kapur's interview with Naipaul:
http://www.akashkapur.com/naipaulint.ht
Meaning, "No argument" with the idea that ICANN needs fresh blood. However, I do question the idea that a global democracy is even possible, due mainly to global corporate interests and not geo-political interests.
And no, I *didn't* RTFA.
C|N>K
Everyone seems to know that ICANN is ineffective and corrupt, so why do people even bother with them. What would happen if a (suitably large enought) group simply refused to recognize ICANN's authority? I'm thinking something organized along the lines of realtime blacklist.
Oh, you mean NEW blood.
Sorry, but sometimes you gotta nitpick the English usage..
> The PGP trust management system is our defense.
No.
GPG - http://www.gnupg.org/
- Unlike PGP, GPG is open.
- Unlike PGP, GPG is not owned by a large corporation (Verisign, incidentally, who owns Network Solutions, who in turn owns PGP).
- Unlike PGP, GPG is verifiably secure.
--nice post. I totally agree on a world government ostensibly "for the people" but in reality run by rich elitists. Plenty of evidence for that now to see. Sounds like one of those "sounds medium OK in theory,but it'll never work" deals. I don't see any world government working either.
Would you care to expound more on the central issue? How would you attempt to regulate ICANN for the better? Or, abandon it to several internets? That would be more my choice. Granted, confusion and more than a little anarchy, but it's the way I can see it going in the future, more of several large multi content providers-something like super AOL type nets,pure commercial, you purchase packages from them, phone, entertainment, information, etc -Iactually see that coming pretty soon- then perhaps an "open source" freebie net or nets. Possibly another one based on always changing wireless and wired meshing networks as well,based around P2P and like bittorrent styled technolgies, so at least several different flavors of "nets", along with the VPNs of course.
Routing you would have to pick your range of DNS servers and protocols,as you surf and 'do stuff', perhaps new prefixes in the url? With perhaps only the major routing being some sort of standard, with IP traffic destination "interpreters" built in to translate these morphing and conflictive addresses?
Interested to hear your views on that topic in general.
Wow, I didn't think anyone could screw up THAT joke.....
ICANN should just go away and the U.S. Government should take direct control. The internet in its earliest incarnations was funded and created by and for the use of the U.S. Government through DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project). The interet is now essential to the American economy and the economy is a matter of national security. At least half of internet traffic runs through Northern Virigia alone. The USA made it, we administer most of it, and it is essential to our well-being. Consequently, the Amercian people ought to have control of something created in their name and with their tax dollars. Everybody else is just a guest that we are nice enough to accomodate. For these reasons, no private corporations and no foreigners should have any binding vote on something created by and essential to the well-being of Americans. Let the assignment of addresses, the root domain, and even TLDs be run by the public. And while we are at it, we should take the assignment of telephone numbers away from private corporations too because all the baby bells have managed to screw that up with those lovely "overlay" area codes.
I was called to New York to meet with Ira Magaziner and some other people about 10 months before ICANN was born. On the surface it was to end the hostilitied bewteen CORE and the alternate root folks. Some sort of democratic organization was envisioned. Lies, lies and more lies. The entire time Magaziner was running around behind the scenes - with Cochetti from IBM (now Verisign) selecting a board.
At a later and very private meeting where NSI and ICANN finally signed with each other, some very high up IBM lawyer-wonk (who called the meeting, that's how powerful they are) bragged they'd spent $60M a year of their washington lobbying budger to make sure no new TLDS were created. Is it any wonder they were so capriciously at Marina del Rey at the 2000 meeting or why there were so fucking lame?
ICANN has always been about protecting the interllectual property of big busines (read: trademarks). Never mind that there are laws protecting trademark owners but no laws protecting domain name owners.
ICANN doesn't need new blood, it just needs honest people at the helm.
As usual: vote with your nameservers - I don't care if you use the ORSC root that I coordnate, or new.net or name.space, OpenNIC or what have you, just back... away... from... the... legacy... root.
Richard Sexton
Need Mercedes parts ?
"It will be run by rich elitists who consider it their so-called burden to make the 'tough choices' for the ignorant masses."
Sounds like a certain Super power at the moment, not mentioning any names of course.
Seriously though what world do you live on and what the hell are you smoking. You are saying that the rule of law is a bad thing?? Shit in that case its militias all the way then.
Lets get something straight, most of the developed world and a fair chunk of the developing world thinks the International Court and the rule of law is a good idea, the list of the ones who don't make interesting reading. Hmm let's see the US (big surprise there), China (those funny old chinese, you should see what they do to Falun Gong members) and others.
You know from where I sit all I can see is America trying to set itself up as the bully of the school yard. It's disappointing becuase for the last decade America was starting to come out of its shell and participate as a genuine world citizen, but now its back to John Wayne diplomacy and fuck the rest of us.
Seeing as this is Domain Resolution without Representation.
That's why you'll see clumsy UDRP mechanisms that work much better for big corporations than for individuals. It's also why whois records are inherently concerned with privacy invasion (making sure to get your True Name and True Address so subpoenas work, and that everybody who manages any part of the domain registration process has to collect that rather than setting their own local policies) but don't require whois records to have actual email addresses that get to actual people who respond to fix things.
Now, some of the problems can be attributed to incompetence rather than malice, and some of them can be attributed to wise conservatism rather than indecision, and reorganization might affect both. Deploying additional TLDs has always been a very visible thing that lots of people wanted ICANN to do, but once they're deployed, they're deployed, and undoing stupid deployments is much harder than delaying. And sure, they probably couldn't have predicted the dot-com crash which radically affected the market value of domain names. But deploying more TLDs is more interesting to people who want to do new and interesting businesses than to major trademark owners who don't want to have to hassle with pre-protecting example.newTLD when they already own example.com, especially when Example Semiconductors has as good a claim to example.newTLD as the Example Soft Drinks Company which owns example.com.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Because there is only ~80 comments to this article 20 hours after posting?
Relocate them to Iraq, there's plenty of fresh blood
Firstly, I presume you know where ICANN money is going - to their Lawyers, JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE.
.reg was introduced?
Next - I have no doubt that ICANN are corrupt - that they violate Trademark and Competition Law with Sunrise Process and UDRP.
Fact: They know how to identify all registered trademarks on the Internet - yet hide this.
The solution has been ratified by honest lawyers.
More facts for you:
You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course.
Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm.
It is trademark overreach to prevent all these businesses from using their name in commerce.
Also - why prevent people using any words for personal sites? Everybody has legitimate rights to use ANY words for ANY legal purpose they wish - true or false?
Trademark Law is UNAMBIGUOUS - a mark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('class') in SPECIFIC country.
A protected TLD could identify all registered trademarks - like the symbol of a R in circle - ®
Most businesses share the same trademark word with others e.g. Apple is used by tobacco and computer company.
Which do you think is Apple Computers website in the US - if
apple.tobacco.us.reg
apple.computer.us.reg
Therefore, apple.com could be directed to apple.computer.us.reg to serve as certificate of authentication and fuction as directory.
Please visit my protest site - not connected with the corrupt United Nations WIPO.org.
It was my understanding that PGP was now owned by PGP corporation, which bought the rights to PGP from NAI... Because of this, I don't believe that your second statement is correct anymore.
It's not a dupe of another article on Slashdot, but speaking logically, it's kind of redundant. We all kno that ICANN needs fresh blood, policies, ideas, ideals, morals, intelligence....
This sig no verb.
Check out
n ov 01.htm
http://www.rdearchive.com
And
http://www.icann.org/escrow/registrar-escrow-08
Read up on the data escrow iniative and then you'll understand why ICANN is neccessary.