Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Meets Annan
CypherOz writes "The Australian reports a meeting between ICANN chief Twomey and Kofi Annan and the role the UN may play in the naming game. " We've talked about this before as well.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I hear the sound of those virtual black helicopters.
"The United Nations would be a good platform for that, because it has legitimacy."
No, it does not.
two organizations that get absolutely nothing done, meet. news at 11.
The UN really should either take over the DNS system, or regulate it (regulation is probably better). After all, DNS is a global system that is important the better part of the world. It clearly falls under the purview of global government.
-
Other critics say ICANN is too slow in making decisions and adopting new technology, like ways to transmit Chinese and Arabic characters. VeriSign has sued the organisation, saying it is standing in the way of lucrative new services.
I wonder if these same critics have paid any attention to just how quickly the UN moves on things. Yes it's an international body, but it also brings even more petty arguments to the table because of that. While ICANN's far from perfect, I doubt things would be any faster with the UN taking over, slower maybe, but not faster.Tell me where all the cash from the "food for oil" programme went? It didn't go to food. It went to bribe top UN, French, German and Russian officials (probably as far up as Putin and Chirac) to support Saddam.
The UN under Kofi Annan has become as corrupt as gangland Chicago.
..but naming isn't everything of the internet! :-?
I just hope that if the UN gets involved, they come in against Verisign and any other large businesses who wish to screw with things. I'm not all for the UN controlling things, mind you. But if they do have some say, I hope its on the side of reason and open standards and fair, reasonable practices.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
From the article
"... whether the internet should be governed and, if so, how."
With all the problems that go on in the UN why are they a better choice then the US. The article has some valid points, but the current system is pretty fair.
Great people don't need people to complete them, great people complete other people. -- Matthew Pawlikowski.
How much could the U.N. actually do that the U.S. isn't doing now? I understand the appearance issue - this way it might have a bit more international legitimacy, but realistically, on a practical level, I don't see much coming out of this. The language compatibility thing is interesting, and that could possibly turn out better when working through the U.N., but I'm skeptical. To me it all sounds like a bunch of dippy diplomats are talking about something they don't understand. But wait - isn't that the U.N.'s new mission?
Otherwise I agree with your premise, and wouldn't mind an independant third-party organization basically running the 'net. Finding one without an agenda or finding one that is relatively corruption-proof is another story entirely.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I was assuming Kofi Annan had better things to do these days.
I sure have heard the term "United Nations to take a greater role" line before.
The gathering grew from December's UN World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva, where the world's leaders failed to reach consensus on governing the Internet and punted the issue to a task force that is supposed to report to Annan in 2005.
When was the last time world leaders manage to reach a consensus?
It ended Saturday with a closed-door meeting of diplomats.
Transparency of internation politics.
Computer industry officials at the meeting were skeptical of a UN role, but they agreed that some kind of international body could be useful in coordinating language issues, security and getting the Internet into developing countries.
Heard that before
Most believed an international body had no right to regulate the content of Web sites, a concern for countries like China and North Korea
And not the US? Oh wait, they have DMCA
"ICANN has to be more international and it has to be more transparent," said Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, vice chairman of the UN Information and Communication Technologies Task Force.
UN Transparency = Closed Door Meetings
ICANN also chooses who controls the country codes -- like ".us" or ".uk" -- that define each country's piece of real estate in cyberspace.
The rightful code for Britain should be GB. But the British snatched UK, which should have gone to Ukraine.
It has yet to decide the future of Iraq's ".iq".
Bush's War Against IQ ;)
Twomey denies any US government influence in ICANN's work.
"I have never once seen the United States' foreign policy have any impact on this process," he said.
deja vu?
Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny
Nothing to see here
> The rest of the world can deal with it or make their own internet.
;-)
We did - we just didn't tell you about it yet. You're not invited you see
Twomey: So, you people want part of our little scheme?
Annan: More or less, yes.
Twomey: What if I tell you to shove your head up your own ass?
Annan: I'm not sure my friend would appreciate that.
Twomey: Really now? I've got Verisign behind me.
Annan: Mario, say hi.
Mario Monti: Hi!
Annan: See that war chest with 500 million euros behind him? The one with the MS logo?
Twomey: You know, this whole scheme involving you sounds interesting all of the sudden. Do tell.
Hate me!
Tell me where all the cash from the "food for oil" programme went? It didn't go to food. It went to bribe top UN, French, German and Russian officials (probably as far up as Putin and Chirac) to support Saddam.
The UN under Kofi Annan has become as corrupt as gangland Chicago.
What are your sources?
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to see some details.
-kgj
-kgj
The question that I would have about the regulatory system in place is that if the government were to attempt to "force the disruption of internet traffic to entire countries by deleting them from central computers," would the commercial hosters and systems continue to accept dns information that would be bad for their customers? It seems that the internet is commercial enough that in leiu of government oversight, it might be better to allow a evolved commercial alliance govern the systems.
.com, .net, .gov, .org, let them. Sell off all remaining 2 and 3 letter combination top level domains using whatever system you want, and then dissolve ICANN. It just makes sense,if the internet is supposed to belong to the users.
It is a bit silly to allow a small thing like DNS to create such a problem in the first place. When we go to IPv6, it might make more sense to use URL forwarding to IP's, and bypass most of the regulatory system in the first place... Allow other countries to maintain permanent fixed DNS servers for their own IP ranges, and have the assignations know, so that all other central controls are unneeded. If the US wants to control
I'm a concientious
And, gasp, we don't care. Have fun on your UNternet or whatever you call it.
This is the same body that put Syria in charge of Human Rights. Given their track record, my bet is they'll just let Verisign continue to run things...
dissing the UN for?? What can be so wrong with having a multi country organisation controlling the internet??? The only problem i can see is america sticking its head in and declaring war on the UN and the internet or something as stupid.
"International law is to law what professional wrestling is to wrestling; no one over the age of nine mistakes it for the real thing."
Time Magazine, opening line in an article about Somalia from 1993.
ICANN's not perfect, the US govt. is not perfect, but to be perfectly honest, Auerbach's right when he says that the US has never really taken a ham-handed approach to the Internet and to "cutting off" anyone it doesn't like.
Sounds to me like the lesser of two evils--we've all seen the types of politics involved in the UN. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure I _want_ more democracy in how the "Internet" is run. And let's be straight about it--they're not talking about peering arrangements, IP address space, whatnot--they're talking about the DNS.
The current hierarchical system has its problems, but the increasing number of non-US root servers should at least disabuse anyone of the notion that an overly zealous US could, at the drop of a hat, just turn things off.
What I'd like to see from the UN, maybe, is increased sponsorship of things like discussion on proposed standards, dissemination of information, encouragement of the spread of technology and freedom of information to certain restrictive third world countries, whatnot. I'd rather not have it involved in the technical development of our dear, functional, essentially stupid network.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
I can think of no better way of hastening the demise of DNS than by turning it into a truly political asset. Once technical control and guidance over DNS is turned over to governments already keen to warp it for commercial interests, what remains of its technical usefulness will dwindle.
This gives us the perfect opportunity (and finally incentive) to come up with something better.
Ukraine's country code is UA, and when the country codes were handed out, Ukraine was still a part of the Soviet Union. UK is listed as an alternate ISO country code for Great Britain. Blame ISO, not ICANN.
You can't have a global economy without a
global government. Get used to it. The U.N.
will eventual control the internet (and us).
The point is the Internet is a US invention and all the infrastructure to run it are either in the US or are allowed to participate by permission from the US. If the UN wants an internet then let the UN build it. Other nations are justified to be warry not only beucase the US may decide to cut off a nation's access to the 'net but in some cases should cut of access.
...the full name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or the UK for short.
.uk TLD then you've got bigger problems than TLD country codes.
.am or some such.
.uk TLD is entirely appropriate. As is the US's use of the .us TLD.
If I have to explain why the UK has the legitimate claim on the
Yes, people (including politicians and the media) treat the terms "The United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" as though they are interchangeable, but I think you'll find they do the same thing with "The United States [of America]" and "America" too.
But if you're reasoning held true then the TLD country code for the US should be
Bottom line: the UK's use of the
Oh, and by the way, diplomacy is rarely about reaching a concensus; it's about reaching a compromise: it's just a pity that some governments have conveniently chosen to forget that.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
123.*
1.2.3.*
Only a few left! Buy now!
this is simply an abuse of the moderation system. if you disagree, reply, don't mod. The free-speech for all types here are sure sensitive, when they hear speech they don't like.
Nice to know that someone at Verisign has some understanding of that.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Geesh, it's not like he's Linus or Madonna or Jesus. Coffee-cup Annan doesn't have that level of recognition, at least in the US. Oh wait, -1, US-Centric. Oh wait, /. is mostly a US site! 50% will think this is a troll, 50% will think that this is Insightful. What to do, what to do...
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
If the UN is the great end-all be-all that most of the slashdotters seem to think it is; then why don't they just offer up their own competing DNS system. If they truly can provide the best service, then everyone would naturally want to use them instead of the current system.
It's a matter of, (gasp!) choice.
The next question: how many people actually understand the term legitimacy? (In the poli sci realm it is defined as the "Legitimation refers to the process by which power is not only institutionalized but more importantly is given moral grounding. Legitimacy (or authority) is what is accorded to such a stable distribution of power when it is considered valid." (From Oxfords Reference Online). The fact is just because the US citizenry may not consider the UN legitimate and the rest of the world considers it legit, does not mean that it is any more legit for the United States. To claim that the UN is legit because the rest of the world claims it is, would be like arguing that Isreal's rule of Palestine is legit just because most of Ireal says it is. The point is that legitimacy changes from demographic to demographic. What one nation may consider legit does not lend itself to force a legitimacy stand on another. And just because the US considers ICANN a legit insitution does not may it any more legit in the world.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
.gov and .mil are country specific, if www.state.gov is typed in a country, it should go to that coutries state department than US state department. Best solution is move .mil and .gov to .mil.us and .gov.us. I think once UN takes control of Internet naming, it will change it. If UN doesn't do it, individual countries might do it.
Are you mad? Why should a military alliance organization be in charge of the internet?
DARPA created the internet. *If* cyberspace falls under -any- human government, then it would be the US. Just because the Pentagon graciously allows non-citizens to use the internet, doesn't mean that a foreign power should be given rule over it.
to be specific, Al Gore invented it.
I'm sure this will inevitably be interpreted as flamebait, but do we really want them dictating policy on the internet? Maybe some other 3rd party, but the UN???? This organization doesn't have a spine. It's corrupt. It happily changes it's tune when politically expedient. Surely there's somebody better out there...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/international/mi ddleeast/23NATI.html?ex=1080622800&en=532043b97d52 2bd9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
23.Mar.04
Annan has beed dodging is issue and got his buddy Sevan, 1st. Undersecretary, to "retire," conveniently, in April.
Asking the Security Council for permission to investigate the U.N. is a dishonest delaying ruse
The New York Timesh tml
t ml?id=110004834
Never has there been a financial rip-off of the magnitude of the U.N. oil-for-food scandal
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/opinion/29SAFI.
The Wall Street Journal
The company in charge of inspecting goods destined for Iraq under the program was Cotecna, which employed Mr. Annan's son Kojo
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h
The next pasture is always greener
I'm sure the UN will handle domain names as skillfully and impartially as they handled the Iraqi oil-for-food program.
What Would Jesus Do
(for a Klondike bar)?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/opinion/29SAFI.h tml?th
Wow, an op-ed piece by Nixon's speechwriter. In the New York Times. Exposing the "truth" about the UN and France. Suddenly makes Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz seem like beacons of truth and honesty.
We need this about as much as a bullet in the head.
Unlike for the offline world, perhaps, the "last, best hope" for the Internet is to leave administering it in the hands of those who actually know what they're doing. The planet isn't *quite* universally dead broke yet, Kofi...You've still got some work to do there before you move on to screwing up the Net.
You may be sitting at home (or the office) on your ass-gasket trying to ignore that painful itching and burning sensation. You CAN'T ignore them though. They are already starting to flare up RIGHT NOW.
THINK about your hemmoroids!
From what I've seen there have been a number of times when Kofi has said something where he's pretty much the only one who cares. Apart from the charity work they do, from everything I've been able to detect, giving extreme left-wing groups like Greenpeace and Amnesty International (and similarly minded extreme left-wing *individuals*, no doubt) the warm fuzzies is pretty much the only reason why the UN exists. Oh, and to provide far-right crackpot militant groups with grist for their world domination conspiracy theory mill, of course. ;-)
I plan to snag the most valuable v6 IP on the net:
0 b: 1e5:b00b:1e5:b00b:1e5
b00b:1e5:b00b:1e5:b00b:1e5:b00b:1e5:b00b:1e5:b0
The UN really needs to be reformed (e.g., France out of the security council, Germany, Japan, and India in would be a better approximation of great powers; and of course countries without consensual governments should have no vote in the general assembly or be eligible to chair any committees)
Better still, no defense counsel and give the general assembly some real powers.
And as far as all this going on about the French is concerned, I think some people need to remember that the most Security Counsel vetoes are actually the Americains defending their personnal interests (notably Israel).
And no, I'm not French, but I do live there
mod me as a troll if you will, I don't care
Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
Also, the UN was created by the US. The rest of the world can deal with it or make their own UN.
It used to take ages for airline codes to change too - Air New Zealand had the code TE instead of NZ for decades after the British Empire split up (it used to be Tasman Empire Air Lines).
We need to remove the idea of "deserving" a domain name. We need to remove the idea of "leasing" a domain name. In other words, we need property rights for DNS entries.
I believe that we should auction off the entire DNS spectrum permanently. Then, you have a property transfer fee, and let people split up their property as they like.
So, for example, you could buy .bax through .baz, and anything in that range would go to your DNS servers. If someone wanted to buy and you wanted to sell, you could sell off .bax-.baxe (so .baxalicious and .baxbeat would be in that range), while retaining .baxf-.baz (.baxforth, .bayarea, etc).
Since the queries for those ranges would be directed to your DNS servers, you could make arrangements to sublet, just like now (so someone could lease iliveinthe.bayarea, just like now, if they either felt your TLD was worth it, or didn't want to buy their own).
When Unicode became viable, you could auction off the new addresses, hence creating a profit motive for them to get it going.
All these new TLDs would reduce the worth of any one TLD, and it would make domain squatting very unprofitable.
It would also remove the concentration of power around ICANN. TLDs would become valuable based on the community, not based on edicts of "appropriateness."
And we would still be able to do things like .email: the group that wants to do it could just buy .email from whomever owned it. Or use another TLD.
And it wouldn't eliminate .org, themed TLDs, or even the possibility of co-op TLDs. As you can do whatever you want with your TLD, you could say "I will only sublet/subsell to Linux-oriented sites," or the same for non-profit. You enforce it, not ICANN.
As for co-op TLDs, you could establish a co-op with a charter, and use the pooled money to buy a TLD (or TLD range). You could do this in order to establish free-for-everyone domains, free-for-a-particular-theme, etc, etc, etc. In that way, this would establish something that does not currently exist: the ability to create a completely free area under a TLD.
No US interference, no UN bickering, no ICANN edicts.
Yes, there are a few unresolved issues, like international trademark (possible solution: lawsuits have to take place in the owner of the TLD's country). But I really think this would be the best way.
Your ideas intrigue me, I would like to be added to your list, and a free sample of Nikes/Tapioca/Kool-aid.
The tune we all sing, as mandated by our dear leader, since 1994 is Blame America!
As this is a purely emotional argument stemming from our own corrupt governments and thus national impotence which as odds with our self-importance, your facts and insightful observations are unwelcome.
If you don't wish to sing along, you may sit quietly with your hands in your lap and like it. It's our internet after all; it was invented by Al Gore, our willing thrall.
Sincerely,
Your Unwelcome, Would-be, International Overlords.
We hate the US, and just want to piss off Americans. It's all we've got going on.
The UN has no business with the Internet they just want to control everything. Their biggest backers are the CFR who already control every bit of major media in America. If you look at the list of CFR members you will see them holding very powerful positions in every broadcast station, magazine and newspaper. Now if they control the internet than we have no recourse but to listen to their propaganda. The UN makes its actions clear that it is indeed trying to establish a world government it's written up in their own documentation. Just recently the UN asked countries to make their armies available for action with the only authority being the UN. They want the governments that own these armies to basically "sign them over" to the UN. The only reason this stuff happens is because we as a people roll over for every thing the government does. Back in the 60's they would have been picketing every day of the last 4 years.
ICANN has worked very well as an independent international body. The UN is a corrupt, inefficient and incompetent body dominated by outmoded European powers to the exclusion of the dynamos of Asia and the Americas.
I can't. I'm even less able to with my head on a swivel preparing to perferate anything threatening at 300 yards.
Problems like that are solved one of two ways. Letting the system reach a natural equilibrium. Which is turning a blind eye to the genocide. Or Forcing it into a new stable equilibrium. Not a meta-stable state. That is conquest, subjugation and imperialism of the most ruthless and obvious sort. Hey, don't knock it. There wouldn't be Russians without Mongols.
And for better (probably) or worst, that type of foreign policy hasn't been of intrest to the US. (Shut the fuck up Mexico, you'll be getting a new wall soon enough as it is.)
Look how well it worked in Somalia. To fix those problems huge segments of the population need to be freed of their will to fight. Since they've no emperor, its going to take the death of significant fraction of them, and the appearent certainy of death for the rest if they don't comply. Especially with feudal cultures organized around familial alliances, that going to be a lot of dead bodies. And for what? We owe them NOTHING. They're not worth the bullets let alone American lives.
The only reason the Serbians got the attention they did was the structure of their government, and their penchant for starting really big wars.
Next time a Christian nation wants to start excecuting Muslim populations wholesale, expect a more muted action from the US. I wouldn't hold it against an administration if they didn't want to get involved. Not anymore.
+5, TROLL!
You win it!
BUHHHHHH!
I, for one, find the prospect frightening. The UN is a large, neigh, obese beauraucracy that will only make domain management a nightmare. There will be endless committee meetings, squabbling between delegates from different countries on whose views are more important or relevant, etc. Oh, wait a minute, thanks to Bill Clinton we already have that with ICANN. I guess there may not be that much of a change afterall.
What, like the USA's current administration, which the evidence overwhelmingly suggests scammed their way into power?
Which evidence is that? Every hand-recount conducted since the election has come to the same conclusion: the president won the Florida delegates no matter how you count them.
The Florida election was a mess, no doubt about it. But the conclusion was correct, given the ballots cast.
That's not democracy, that's a Supreme Court sanctioned dictatorship.
That's funny. I don't remember the last time a dictator (1) failed to get most of his programs through the legislature, and (2) had to run for re-election four years later.
The Supreme Court really let us down, man.
Voting doesn't actually DO anything.
Whatever you say, man.
Face it, Democracy is a collosal failure.
Democracy would be a colossal failure, if implemented. That's why we live in a republic, not a democracy.
That said, assuming you've got a problem with republicanism (i.e., representative democracy), what would you suggest we replace it with, exactly?
"Enhance your 'maleness,' vote W!"
The Australians have struck down THE TRUE PROPHET!
His message is not getting across !! due to the pervasive Australian conspiracy ... !!
To those of you who behold THE Truth! I say to you: Believe not their LIES !!! Mod the post UP to let the truth be KNOWN BY ALL !!!
Shall we leave it in the hands of the Americans. They are certainly doing a great job with Iraq.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Why do Americans hate the UN so much. Have you all swallowed the gov propaganda especially since it didn't go along with the (illegal) war in Iraq.
Sure the UN may have corruption but nowhere is perfect. Can anyone here tell me that WHO or UNESCO do not do good work. How about wiping out smallpox. That used to kill millions; now it no longer exists. How about the UN election monitors. Since WWII the UN has helped stopped so many wars. Think about what would have happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis if there was no UN where the US could make its case.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George