ICANN Meets Annan

fantastic by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 03:15 · Score: 5, Funny

two organizations that get absolutely nothing done, meet. news at 11.

Grumble by Mark_MF-WN · 2004-03-29 03:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Grumble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Actually, you can run your own DNS system which is totally independent of everyone else's if you want. The internet is cool like that.
Re:Grumble by _Sharp'r_ · 2004-03-29 03:28 · Score: 5, Troll

The other problem is that the UN is by no stretch of the imagination a "global government". It's a club for dictators to grand-stand while the powers from the end of WW II watch with their veto powers.

--
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Re:Grumble by Xenographic · 2004-03-29 03:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

The best thing anyone can do (ICANN included) is leave the internet the hell alone.

The last thing we need is an international body trying to make us subject to all the laws in the world, in spite of the contradictions in law everywhere...

For example, I wonder how many sites discussing the history of WW II would be allowed? Germany has some pretty strict laws about anything relating to the Nazis. It's not particularly clear to me that you could even, say, cite Hitler's writings or show pictures of historical artifacts without running afoul of it, even should you (rightfully!) condemn the horrible things that happened during that war.

Besides, we already have countries fencing in their own little bits of the internet (first China, now France as I understand it... probably others, soon) ... the irony is that the internet is already too international for some countries.

That said, DNS probably could be a bit smarter about, say, using unicode instead of ASCII for URLs... Though I have to wonder just how confusing that might make things if there are now who knows how many glyphs that all look too similar (new avenues for typosquatters, no doubt) ...
Re:Grumble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 03:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not to derail, but please remember that the UN is not an elected body. Here in the West, we hold as self-evident the idea that legitimate government can only arise out of the will of the people. The various ambassadors and ministers that make up the UN General Assembly and Security Council are not elected, either directly or indirectly.

The United Nations is not and cannot be a world government. It's not a government at all. It lacks the legitimate authority to govern anything.

I don't wanna get into a big thing here. I just want to be clear on this.
Re:Grumble by squarooticus · 2004-03-29 03:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

It clearly falls under the purview of global government.

Yikes! Thank goodness the UN isn't actually a global government with sovereign power over anyone. The UN is basically a soap box for third-world dictators to scapegoat developed countries for the problems their own corrupt governments are actually responsible for. 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), but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

However, even with reforms, the UN should have no power over the structure of the internet: the internet today is essentially just a large NAP of private networks, and has none of its own structure. Even the use of ICANN's private DNS servers by the vast majority of users on the internet is just convention, and any country or organization can run their own root servers and lobby others to use them. Any attempts to centrally control these systems will ultimately result in the system's primary users (those who will no doubt be screwed by the UN's dictator-centric model) routing around the regulations.

Bottom line: thank goodness the internet is peer-to-peer. The users truly have the power, and don't have to take it up the ass from a central authority.

Cheers,
Kyle

--
[ home ]
Re:Grumble by morelife · 2004-03-29 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

The UN really should either take over the DNS system

The Domain Name System is a large, multifaceted "thing". The UN is simply not qualified to either own it, or regulate it.

The UN should have a voice in some parts of the process, especially to ensure uniformity among nations, and to ensure that third world countries who spend most of their valuable assets trying to find food, let alone Internet access/presence, don't get shafted as regulations evolve and the Internet grows.

What needs pure reform is ICANN itself.
Re:Grumble by ahillen · 2004-03-29 04:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

For example, I wonder how many sites discussing the history of WW II would be allowed? Germany has some pretty strict laws about anything relating to the Nazis. It's not particularly clear to me that you could even, say, cite Hitler's writings or show pictures of historical artifacts without running afoul of it, even should you (rightfully!) condemn the horrible things that happened during that war.

Considering the abundance of books, films etc. in Germany about the Nazi era I'm pretty sure that it is legal to use symbols, citations etc. in historical context (that is, as long as you don't use them to glorify national sozialism, make a Hitler fan page or whatever).

I'm not entirely sure what all the tasks of ICANN are, but I guess regulating who can show what content under which domain never was part of them (and should never be).
Re:Grumble by ultranova · 2004-03-29 04:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not entirely sure what all the tasks of ICANN are, but I guess regulating who can show what content under which domain never was part of them (and should never be).

But it could be. Delete someone's DNS records, and the site will drop off the Internet. Sure, it's still there, but it can't be accessed without knowing the IP address, and how many are going to start changing their DNS settings back and forth for different sites ?

I can just see it - China lobbying for removal of all anti-Chinese-government websites, Germany demanding the removal of every website which mentions the words "Nazi" or "World War II", and everyone else trying to remove anything offensive for anyone. While I'm usually for international cooperation, I don't think taking DNS from a corporation who carries anyone who pays and giving it to a bunch of well-and-not-so-well-meaning politicians is a good idea.

We must have a working Freenet before this comes to pass - the Net is too important to leave to politicians to rule.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Grumble by C10H14N2 · 2004-03-29 08:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Last I checked, the United Nations never forced German law on anyone. It's just a complete misreading of the UN to view it as imposing one nation's laws on another. It's a negotiating table and all parties must assent. That's the whole reason the Kyoto protocol and the whole UNFCCC has had such difficulties. There's no such thing as the UN foisting anyone's idea of anything on anyone unless they agree to it. Peacekeepers must be invited. Weapons Inspectors must be given permission. All of the enforcement tools the UN has are only as strong as the member states who choose to participate in those actions. The U.N. is not a superstate. That's it's greatest strength and it's greatest weakness.

That said, there is a great similarity between the structure of ICANN and that of, say, the security council. Leadership is rotational on an international scale. ICANN is not just some static cabal hiding away behind LAX machinating on world domination. That common portrayal seems to come from those who wouldn't recognize ICANN if they were standing on the corner of Mindanao and Admiralty facing north and looking upward 50 feet.

Like the UN would be any faster... by Maestro4k · 2004-03-29 03:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Like the UN would be any faster... by millwall · 2004-03-29 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

"While ICANN's far from perfect, I doubt things would be any faster with the UN taking over, slower maybe, but not faster."

I don't think these issues have any need for a fast paced organisation. I would rather prefer a stable, yet slow organasation to handle these issues.
Re:Like the UN would be any faster... by S3D · 2004-03-29 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

And UN is suspectible to political pressue considerably more then ICANN. What a can of worms will open if UN will deside wich country should have wich domain name suffixes, and who shouldn't have suffixes at all. And Taiwan is not an UN member at all. What if UN start removing existing suffixes for political reasons ?
Re:Like the UN would be any faster... by Maestro4k · 2004-03-29 03:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
- And UN is suspectible to political pressue considerably more then ICANN. What a can of worms will open if UN will deside wich country should have wich domain name suffixes, and who shouldn't have suffixes at all. And Taiwan is not an UN member at all. What if UN start removing existing suffixes for political reasons ?
An incredibly good point, I hope someone mods you up. I'm sure that China would start the pressure to have Taiwan removed immediately and I'm sure Israel would start lobbying for Palenstine (.ps IIRC) to lose its domain. Actually the net would probably come to a screeching halt while the UN fought over who deserved a domain or not.
Despite the concerns expressed in the article by critics, the US has taken a fairly non-political oversight role with the Internet and ICANN. True that might not stay that way, but at least as things stand now, ICANN is probably far less political than any UN governed Internet body would ever be.

If by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2004-03-29 03:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:If by Maestro4k · 2004-03-29 03:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
- 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.
Actually the real question would be would the UN have any actual POWER to enforce the rules they set. They don't have much power now, so UN mandates get ignored quite often when it's convenient, so Verisign would probably just do what it wanted and ignore the UN mandates. It could actually end up being much WORSE than it is now.
Re:If by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2004-03-29 03:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

The doesn't have any real power for a couple reasons. First, since it's a conglomerate "government" it relies completely on the power of its constituents. And rarely has it wanted to do anything that its powerful constituents didn't want to do already (do to veto power and a few weighty members). So when some powerful countries who would already be taking an action go through the UN, they just do what they originally set out to do with UN uniforms on.

Secondly, the UN doesn't have any real power because, while everyone is willing to participate, no one is willing to really give up power of their nation to another ruling body. I doubt that will ever happen peacefully.

I would like to see more discussion from the UN about what might help developing countries, or what might foster more online growth - and then see that input taken into account by internet regulators. But I think that's about the best the UN could do to help.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.

This is what is wrong with this idea. by Guysdrinkingbeer · 2004-03-29 03:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:This is what is wrong with this idea. by pubjames · 2004-03-29 03:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

With all the problems that go on in the UN why are they a better choice then the US.

Because then it wouldn't be a single country forcing its view of how things should be done on everyone else?

The UN has got a lot of criticism recently for being slow. Of course it is quicker and easier to make unilateral decisions. Getting consensus with a large group takes time.

The UN might be in considerably better shape if the USA put it weight behind it and didn't try to put it down all the time. There has been a lot more UN bashing recently since Bush got into power. It's not really suprising when you consider he had hardly been outside of the USA before he became president - an increadible state of affaird for a country that traditionally has been so good at foreign policy.
Re:This is what is wrong with this idea. by linoleo · 2004-03-29 03:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

With all the problems that go on in the UN why are they a better choice then the US.

With all due respect, the main problem going on in the UN *is* the US. The UN aren't perfect, but in fact they're doing quite well, and would be doing great if they weren't undercut at every turn by US administrations who use UN-bashing to score cheap popularity points with their voters. (Something similar can be seen in Europe with respect to the EU: the national governments like to take credit for any positive effects while blaming the negatives on Brussels.)

--
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard

hmmm... by spangineer · 2004-03-29 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Where have we heard this before by amigoro · 2004-03-29 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Some countries and activists argue that ICANN is too close to the United States and want the United Nations to take a greater role in regulating the internet.

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

Re:UN wants to rule the internet.. by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2004-03-29 03:30 · Score: 4, Funny

I personally advocate ditching dns and going back to plain ip numbers. If you find a site you like, remember it's ip number, or just bookmark the number. If you have a big coorporate site, make television commercials like "Biggest Sale Ever!!! visit http://36.112.2.14 for details" We'll also cut internet traffic by a third and do away with all the trouble surrounding who controls the names.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.

Re:The internet was created by the US by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 03:31 · Score: 3, Funny

> 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 ;-)

Negotiations by Dark+Lord+Seth · 2004-03-29 03:32 · Score: 4, Funny

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!

Cite Your Sources by handy_vandal · 2004-03-29 03:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Cite Your Sources by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 03:40 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm not the original poster, but this is a big deal. The Iraqi oil-for-food program was by far the largest amount of money that the UN had ever handled. It dwarfed the rest of the UN's budget.

(That said, I doubt Putin or Chirac were bribed. Like Bush, they had their own strong interests in the matter of Iraq and its government.)

Here are a few references. You can find plenty more on news.google.com :

'Massive scam' in Iraqi oil program

Get to heart of UN role in Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal

Annan Pushes UN Council Members on Iraq Oil Scandal

3,000 UN Staffers Probed

Bulgaria's President Questioned over Iraq Oil Scandal

Why bother using the UN? by gartogg · 2004-03-29 03:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

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 .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.

--
I'm a concientious .sig objector.

International law... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 03:37 · Score: 5, Funny

"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.

Seems Like the Wrong Way to Do Things by fuzzybunny · 2004-03-29 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Perhaps you haven't heard but... by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-03-29 03:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

...the full name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or the UK for short.

If I have to explain why the UK has the legitimate claim on the .uk TLD then you've got bigger problems than TLD country codes.

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 .am or some such.

Bottom line: the UK's use of the .uk TLD is entirely appropriate. As is the US's use of the .us TLD.

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

NGO? by utlemming · 2004-03-29 03:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

The only way that it would work would be for a NGO to be formed. But honestly, I think that most Americans and Europeans would be more comfortable if the ICANN powers were turned over to NATO than to the UN. We're talking politics, and even though most of us /.ers are ideologs, we still need to recogonize the importance of politics. The US is not going to let the internet out of our hands. Not with out protecting the interests of the US. Most likely the future of the internet is going to be decided not by the UN, but by a consortuim of internet nations in treaty negotiations. Whether or not the UN takes over the internet will not solve the issues surrounding the internet. All the issues, such as a spam, porn, fraud, et al., will have to be resolved via treaties anyway. You might as well form a treaty organization that is devoted solely to the internet with teeth.

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.

Information Super Highway... TO HELL by Mulletproof · 2004-03-29 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

34 of 221 comments (clear)