Slashdot Mirror


ICANN Budget Questioned

Thing I am writes "The proposed 2004-5 budget for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has hit a snag - the rest of the world is refusing to pay its share of the bill. ICANN last week proposed a budget of $15.8m for next year, nearly twice as much as its current annual expenditure."

126 comments

  1. Due to lack of funding... by k4_pacific · · Score: 4, Funny

    The internet will be shut down until further notice.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
    1. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The only significant new cost in ICANN's budget is littigation.

      There would be no real problem with ICANN if there was a rational process for appointing it. The problem here is that a constitution designed for a benevolent dictator is now in the hands of a group of people with the outlook of a US CEO.

      This is the sort of thing that happened at the New York Stock Exchange.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    2. Re:Due to lack of funding... by leerpm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But in the article it also states they are requesting a lot more money for the IANA. Twenty times more in fact. With the RIRs and LIRs taking over more of the duties with respect to number assignment in IPv6, I don't see why the IANA needs so much more money.

      Somebody at ICANN needs to wise up, and stop trying so many power grabs. They should be delegating as much as possible to the regional/country authorities. Instead they seem to be on a crusade to be the ultimate ruling body on all matters relating to the Internet. And yet, they have shown they barely have the strength to stand up to a company like VeriSign.

    3. Re:Due to lack of funding... by CountBrass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Noob. The Web (invented by Tim Berners-Lee) != the internet.

      The US *did* invent the internet: Google for Arpanet (and of course Al Gore's contribution ;-)

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    4. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Ateryx · · Score: 3, Insightful
      They should be delegating as much as possible to the regional/country authorities.

      While I'm never part of the tinfoil hat crowd, it does make me concerned when the most free form of media becomes more and more in control of one country.

      --
      "The truth suffers from too much analysis"
    5. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I dont know about your claim to have invented the Internet (Is that you, Al??), but i have to say, as a American, without the US the internet would not exist today, so we have a right to own and control some part of it.You guys should be more grateful, for this and other things.

      And we Brits invented electricity, the steam engine, television and radio. So we should have the right to control them.

      Your claims are actually way off. The Internet protocols were developed in the US, but if the Web had appeared later than it did it would probably have used the OSI stack which was largely the result of work in the UK.

      Sure there are technical differences between TCP/IP and OSI, TCP/IP might even have some advantages. But to claim that there would be no computer networking without the US is simply untrue.

      Most coutries grow out of this type of weenie size measurement. We grew out of it, you should try it too. Your type of thinking is the reason you guys are currently up to your ass in the Iraq quagmire, that and the fact that your incompetent "President" got taken by a ride by Iranian intelligence. If you were not such suckers for the weenie size rhetoric you would never have elected him in the first place. But then again of course you never did.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    6. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      >> I think its the school system, it produces a nation of plodders and worker bees without creativiyt or imagination.

      Or grammar and spelling skills, apparently.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    7. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And we Brits invented electricity

      That's right. Anyone who tells you it existed before that is lying.

      Those fish that give you electric shocks only evolved the skill after stealing the idea from the Brits.

      Mother Nature, you owe UK plc humungous amounts of money for your unauthorised use of electricity in your 'thunder' and 'lightning' services.

      Your type of thinking is the reason you guys are currently up to your ass in the Iraq quagmire

      Yeah, I'm glad that there aren't any British troops in Iraq too. *cough*

      that and the fact that your incompetent "President" got taken by a ride by Iranian intelligence.

      Call me a sceptic, but I see this as more like the WMD thing "not being as good an excuse to invade Iraq as we'd hoped".

      And I can't be arsed going into much depth about Tony Blair, save that he either believes the bullshit put out before, during and "after" the war, which makes him an idiot. Or alternatively, that he previously went along with the Iraq thing to preserve Britain's influence with the US; except that it's obvious now that Britain only has influence when they do what the US want them to do- i.e. they *don't* have any influence, and Tony Blair is still behaving like the US's dementedly loyal poodle.

      Being a sceptic, I went along with the second explanation, and it's only recently dawned on me how incompetent and one-dimensional Tony Blair is.

      Oh, and I am a "Brit" too if you want to call me that.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    8. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, 'cuz those European gov'ts with their restrictions on free speech and such are going to be real fun to deal with.

    9. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad the Brits didn't invent a fucking toothbrush!

    10. Re:Due to lack of funding... by AaronGTurner · · Score: 1

      "And we Brits invented electricity, the steam engine, television and radio. So we should have the right to control them" Ah... if only we had. The television was seemingly first invented by the French during WW1, and Marconi was Italian. I'd have to check on the steam engine.

    11. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most coutries grow out of this type of weenie size measurement. We grew out of it, you should try it too.

      That's what all the countries say when they realize their weenies are smaller than other countries'.

    12. Re:Due to lack of funding... by AaronGTurner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We did invent the electronic computer, at least :-) Actually British scientists were working on networking computers in the late 1960s along with those in the USA. The USA got to a practical solution first, though. Anyway, none of this really matters unless inventions are so locked down that a country is heavily economically disadvantaged if it doesn't get to inventions first. I'd rather inventions be seen from the perspective of being able to enrich human existence through synergy with other developments, whatever the country of origin. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, after all.

    13. Re:Due to lack of funding... by coopaq · · Score: 1
      Most coutries grow out of this type of weenie size measurement. We grew out of it, you should try it too.

      <homer on> Well my friend, as an American I can tell you that after just looking in my pants I am still awe struck by the size. Bigger is better and I think ICANN should double it's budget. Now if you will excuse me I'm going to go biggy-size my Happymeal for lunch and go surf the big American internet were 90% of it is written in American.

      You brits can keep you electricity and television. We have iraqi oil and computer monitors now! Ha! </homer off>

    14. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      Hyuk!

    15. Re:Due to lack of funding... by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The constitution was designed to have frequent elections of the board members...but they've neglected to ever have one. (It's possible that I have the wrong group here, but I doubt it.)

      Personally, I think everyone should refuse to pay ICANNs budget. But I believe that the US govt. has assumed control. In which case, I certainly understand everyone else refusing to pay.

      My personal feeling is that the rest of the world should get together and create their own equivalent. Then the US could join as an equal, or could maintain "splendid isolation". But that it's quite unreasonable for the US to expect to call the tunes, and then have everyone else share the bill.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re:Due to lack of funding... by mar1boro · · Score: 1
      While I'm never part of the tinfoil hat crowd, it does make me concerned when the most free form of media becomes more and more in control of one country.
      Part of the problem is that we have become used to any countries at all
      controlling the infrastructure. CENTR is no more trustworthy than
      ICANN or the ITU. The world's governments have recognized that the "internet"
      is an actual space, and they are acting in the way that governments always do
      - by asserting control.

      Frontier is, by definition, ungoverned. Governments, like nature, abhor vacuums.
      --
      -- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
    17. Re:Due to lack of funding... by _iris · · Score: 1

      Being an optimistic, I'm hoping it is capital meant to kick start IPv6 deployment and/or litigation funds for the "you don't shut down spammers, we reassign your netblock" policies that are probably inevitable.

    18. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Marconi was a thieving hack. He stole all the needed elements from Tesla who lived and worked in the US for most of his life.

      The first steam engine was invented in Greece in the 1st century as a toy. Denis Papin (French) build a very notable one in 1679. James Watts is primary credited and he was born in Scotland.

      And electricity... please the ancient Greeks rubbed fur together to get static shock.

      The only things the brits invented was boiled food.
      Well, really gobs of stuff, but you hardly can have credit for any of the stuff you mentioned.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    19. Re:Due to lack of funding... by D'Sphitz · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine some of it is the whole SiteFinder debacle, and the need for a significant legal fund.

    20. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah? Well, my internet's bigger than your internet ;) j/k

    21. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      "I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given it and related research areas by the vice president [Al Gore] in his current role and in his earlier role as senator." -- Vinton Cerf (Internet pioneer, TCP/IP co-designer), quoted by John Schwartz, The Washington Post, 1999-03-21

      [The Republican party invented the *lie* that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet and the media were overjoyed to fan the flames. Gore appears to have coined the term "Information Superhighway" to emphasize not its technical architecture but the way that government should approach funding and developing it.]

    22. Re:Due to lack of funding... by whitis · · Score: 1

      And we Brits invented electricity, the steam engine, television and radio. So we should have the right to control them.

      Well, your claims here are a bit exagerated.

      • Electricity: 600BC - Greece (static electricity)
        250BC - Iraq (battery)
        1600 William Gilbert - England
        1752 Ben Frankilin, US
        Faraday - England
        Galvani - Italian
        Volta - Italian
        Ampere - French
        Ohm - German
        Tesla - AC Generator
        Edison - Light bulb
        Many more
      • Steam Engine: 1st century A.D. Heron of Alexandra - Greece
        1679 Denis Papin - french
        1698 Thomas Savery - british
        1769 James Watt - Scottish
      • Television: 1884 Paul Gottlieb Nipkow: german
        1874 Karl Ferdinant Braun - german (CRT)
        1908 A.A. Campbell Swinton - British
        1924 John Logie Baird - British
        1927 Philo Taylor Farnsworth - American (First fully electronic TV)
        1927 WGY - US (First TV service)
      • Radio: 1893 Nikola Tesla - Serbo-American (demonstrated radio),
        1898 Nathan Stubblefield - American (induction - not actually radio),
        1894 Sir Oliver Lodge - British
        1896 Marconi - born in italy, rx british patent

      Your claims are actually way off. The Internet protocols were developed in the US, but if the Web had appeared later than it did it would probably have used the OSI stack which was largely the result of work in the UK. Sure there are technical differences between TCP/IP and OSI, TCP/IP might even have some advantages. But to claim that there would be no computer networking without the US is simply untrue.

      There is a reason we use IP and not OSI and it is one that makes me hope that ISO/ITU never gets control of the IETF. When the IETF publishes a standard (RFC), it is downloadable over the net for free. When ISO "publishes" a "standard" you have to pay for a copy. This seriously interferes with widespread adoption as well as open source and shareware projects. And not only can non-business entities use RFCs, they actually have a reasonable shot at creating them as well. You don't need deep pockets to create an IETF standard.

    23. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your claims are actually way off. The Internet protocols were developed in the US, but if the Web had appeared later than it did it would probably have used the OSI stack which was largely the result of work in the UK.

      Pure bullshit. The OSI stack was largely developed by DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION in the USA. Besides that, it is likely the "web" would have evolved using X.25/X.PC as the sync/async transport and NAPLPS (North American Presentation Layer Protocol Syntax) instead of HTML. But someone let the PPP cat out of the bag and that allowed TCP/IP, a protocol which is inherently insecure, to spread rampidly in an unregulated manner -obsoleting X.25 and leading to the security shitstorm we have now. They are going in for the kill now with VoIP (which will utterly crush the POTS). Oh, and by the way, after X.25 collapsed in the USA, what was left of the main VAN was sold off to British Telecom.

      Most coutries grow out of this type of weenie size measurement. We grew out of it, you should try it too.

      In America, we are celebrating Memorial Day this weekend --you remember, where our grandparents died so that someone in England who might choose a handle like "Zeinfeld" didn't have to die in an oven.

      Your type of thinking is the reason you guys are currently up to your ass in the Iraq quagmire

      Just shut the fuck up and get the Hell off of Slashdot! You are not welcome to logon to our American technical discussions and assisnate the character of Americans based on the policies of our government. The same government that saved your limey ass, you bastard.

    24. Re:Due to lack of funding... by AaronGTurner · · Score: 1

      "The first steam engine was invented in Greece in the 1st century as a toy." Not actually a steam engine. You are correct about Papin, however.

    25. Re:Due to lack of funding... by AaronGTurner · · Score: 1

      "The first steam engine was invented in Greece in the 1st century as a toy."

      Not actually a steam engine. You are correct about Papin, however. The British have invented a number of things, notably the electronic computer. Often people attribute inventions incorrectly and it becomes received wisdom (e.g. Bell and the telephone), though.

      With regard to boiling food in Britain, primarily that is England, and was only really the case in the 20th century. If you look at recipes up to and including the 19th century they are very rich in flavour, and now we've essentially jettisoned the whole boiled veg culture, thank goodness! (It was grim growing up in the 1970s!)

    26. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Well, your claims here are a bit exagerated.

      We also invented sarcasm.

      The British claim to have 'invented' those ideas is at least as good as the claim that the US invented computer networking.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    27. Re:Due to lack of funding... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Call me a sceptic, but I see this as more like the WMD thing "not being as good an excuse to invade Iraq as we'd hoped".

      Historians of the Bush "Presidency" are divided between the incompetent fool theory and the incompetent liar theory.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    28. Re:Due to lack of funding... by whitis · · Score: 1

      We also invented sarcasm.

      Unfortunately, this revolutionary new technology was of not feasible for use online until on 1982-09-19 an American invented the emoticon and was restricted to use by the BBC. :-)

      The British claim to have 'invented' those ideas is at least as good as the claim that the US invented computer networking.

      Claiming to have invented the internet is not the same as claiming to have invented computer networking; however, the US clearly holds the claim to the internet and probably computer networking as well. The US did in fact invent The Internet and TCP/IP.

      Claiming to have invented the internet also is not the same as claiming to have invented the world wide web. The Internet was very much a thriving international network before the world wide web (a device for lowering the average IQ of the internet user by about 30 points). I was a system manager of a network of Sun Workstations for 2-3 years before the WWW was created and used the internet almost every day and I had used it a decade before that but didn't have long term daily access (except email through compuserve) before then. And my mail server was painstakingly configured to correctly deliver mail to non-internet systems including the backwards uk.ac.... domains (well actually, the us domains are backwards).

      In fact "The Internet", TCP/IP (1973), ARPANET (1969), UUCP, RSCS/BITNET, DECNET, CSNET, Ethernet (1973), packet switching, and hypertext were all US creations. RS-232 was introduced by EIA in 1960. 1960 brought us the PLATO system. 1962 J.C.R Licklider at MIT proposed a Galactic Network of globaly connected computers. 1964 brought us the online reservation system SABRE with 2000 dumb terminals connected to two computers and the JOSS time sharing service. The MODEM invented at bell labs in 1958. "Information Flow in Large Communications Nets", Leonard Kleinrock, MIT, 1961. "On-Line Man Computer Communication", J.C.R Licklider & W. Clark, MIT, 1963. "On Distributed Computed Communications Networks", 1964, Paul Baran, RAND (Born in poland, moved to US at age of 2). A computer at MIT and one in Santa Monica, CA are linked via a dedicated 1200bps phone line; another computer at ARPA added later. Andreis van Dam of Brown University develops first operational hypertext ssystem 1967. 1967 also saw the first meeting of the three packet network teams (ARPA, RAND, and NPL (england). X.25 (popular in the 70s and 80s) apparently evolved from Davies' work at NPL; X.25 provided permanent virtual circuits between machines (and later to a lesser extent switched virtual circuits) but was basically intended to be a WAN only system whereas TCP/IP protocols worked on both LAN and WAN segments.

      If non-US countries made any major contributions to computer networking (other than the reduntant invention of packet switching) prior to 1969, we here in the US are not the only ones who have forgotten. I tried to search european sites as well as US sites.

      Some notable non-US activity: The french created minitel (1982), a mainframe network with home access via dumb terminals similar to the US Compuserve (1969) and "The Source" (1978); of particular interest is the widespread deployment. The frenchman Emile Baudot invented the 5 bit teleprinter code that carries his name; it was an improvement on morse code but was obsoleted with by computers and the EBCDIC(1963/64) and ASCII (1964) codes. HTTP and HTML were invented at CERN based on American Vannevar Bush's Memex (hypertext). Europeans also made significant contributions to computing around the time of World War II. Arthur C Clark conceived the Communications Satelite. In 1967, NPL in Middlesex, England crates packet switched data network, NPL Data Network; it is interesting to note the links were 768kbps. NPL was a short distance network a small number of nodes that simply was not as well funded as ARPANET. Donald Watts Davies (UK) apparently came up with the idea of packet s

  2. Dr. Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $16 million is nothing. Chump change. My state has bigger budgets for smaller institutions. This is the global internet we're talking about here. People are cheapskates.

    1. Re:Dr. Evil by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, $16 million dollars is nothing. So instead of calling people (in this case Europa) cheapskates you should look for other motives. This isn't about money, but control. CENTR obviously doesn't like what ICANN has become, and uses it's most effective way of pressuring ICANN to change.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    2. Re:Dr. Evil by loyalsonofrutgers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      $16 million is plenty of money. I agree that it very comfortably falls into any "margin of waste" for governments, but it's hardly nothing. For instance, it's roughly the budget shortfall of my old school district that I went to high school in. If I was The World Community and had to decide between a specific appropriation so a bunch of bureaucrats could fly around on private corporate jets at public expense and funding the education of a few thousand children, I'd cut ICANN loose too.

  3. ICANN.... by su2ge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not Budget. Someone needs to cut back on using jets and charging it to the organizations account.

    1. Re:ICANN.... by Cramer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I read their "budget"... accordingly, they are paying an average of $93k per employee. That's insane. And seeing as that's an average, I'd bet 70% of that line item is in the executives pockets. Nothing ICANN is supposed to do is worth that kind of cash. (I'll never understand the need to give CEO's 250k$ + millions in extras. They don't do shit to deserve it.)

      As for IANA... what the f*** do they need with 5.8mil? They really don't do hardly anything. They don't host root name servers or run any part of the internet infrastructure. (if IANA went poof tomorrow, the internet wouldn't even notice. they provide valuable services, just not active, critical services.) They deligate address space, assign ASN's, and maintain the associated database(s) for those deligations (and bill for them.) I've built and maintained the same thing for ISPs -- it's not that f'ing difficult. Seeing how they bill for most of what they do, why would they need so much from ICANN?

  4. Question about ICANN's place in the world by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article: "ICANN is relying on the fact that Europe's Internet registries (although CENTR, despite its name, represents far more than just European interests) will want to have ICANN in charge more than they will want an international body controlled by governments (the ITU)"

    I'm not getting something. Why would a (I presume) for-profit corporation like ICANN be preferable to a system controlled by governments? Honest question, I'm really curious. What does ICANN offer that this ITU doesn't?

    --
    Yup...
    1. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``What does ICANN offer that this ITU doesn't?''

      They fall under US jurisdiction.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    2. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by takasuz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An international organization controlled by goverments tends to work bureaucratically and inefficiently. A commercial company can be more flexible and efficient if it is not in monopoly. I think we somehow needs a competition here.

    3. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For-profits have clear goals: profit. Politicians can be quite ingenious about hiding their true goals: profit. And then there are some idealists who try to make you do things which cut into your profits. All in all companies understand other companies better and thus prefer them to government intervention.

    4. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I'm puzzled as to why that would be a selling point to Europe's registries.

    5. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by fractaloon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would a (I presume) for-profit corporation like ICANN be preferable to a system controlled by governments?

      Actually, ICANN is a non-profit according to their website. I'm guessing they want to jack up their salaries 20 fold and the easiest way is to try and hold everyone at gunpoint.

    6. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by leerpm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the ITU falls under the control of the UN. At the UN, both the US and Europe have much less influence and control. By handing 'control of the Internet' over to the UN, the developed nations would run the risk of less developed nations using their new found control as a bargaining chip against the US/Europe in other matters.

      Personally, I don't really want to see the Internet become an issue that gets rolled into trade negotiations. The Europeans don't want to see ICANN folded into under the wings of the ITU. But they are fed up with the ways things are being run at ICANN, and holding up funding is just a temporary tactic designed to try and bring about some change at ICANN.

    7. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by Maserati · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funny, SCO isn't a member of ICANN...

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    8. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would a (I presume) for-profit corporation like ICANN be preferable to a system controlled by governments?

      If you don't like what the corporation is doing, you can stop paying. Try that with government.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    9. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      I don't think competition is a good idea. The ICANN is an authority, and you can't really have more than one. Imagine that two authorities would incompatibly assign names or numbers *shivers*. To prevent such a situation, you would need an even higher authority...ad nauseam.

      My view is that (although ICANN has been doing an okay job) infrastructure (like the Internet) is too important to entrust to a (for-profit) company. Of course, any organization can mess up, but if it's for profit, you know for sure you are paying more than necessary.

      As to the argument that government-controlled organizations tend to work inefficiently: I think that's mostly because they aren't actually controlled enough. What forces companies to be more streamlined than non-profit organizations is competition: if you can't work efficiently enough, you will lose the race and see your profits decline. The knife cuts on both sides: companies will cut down on everything they can, possibly reducing the quality of their product to unacceptible levels.

      It's no disaster if a company makes microwaves that tend to break down a lot. It's more annoying if a company makes faulty brakes. But what is really disastrous is if the infrastructure that a company provides fails: electricity, communications, water, ... An organization that is government-controlled can just be ordered to deliver services that work, which is much harder to do if you depend competition.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    10. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Informative

      ``If you don't like what the corporation is doing, you can stop paying.''

      And then you also lose the service.

      ICANN is not quite in the same league as, say, newspapers. They provide services that cannot really be provided by more than one organization. You can't just switch. Therefore, competition won't work. I would say that government regulation is better than no control.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    11. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we somehow needs a competition here.

      Two bands of money grabbing megalomaniacs battling it out for control of the internet! I can't wait.

      How do we judge which "competitor" is winning? The insanity of their grandiose plans? The evilness of their cackling?

    12. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing they want to jack up their salaries 20 fold and the easiest way is to try and hold everyone at gunpoint.

      No, they're primarily interested in power, influence and a sense of their own importance. Running a massive bureacracy and having people at your beck and call are rewards in themselves. I'm not saying they won't take the big salaries too, just that that isn't motive #1.

    13. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      If you don't like what the government is doing, you can vote them out. Try that with a corporation.

    14. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You control a corporation with money, one dollar, one vote.

      You control a government with people, one person, one vote.

      Sure, it doesn't work perfectly, and if one wants to get complicated, there're things which should be handled by private interests (not necessarily corporations) and others by governments.

      But are you advocating that something as important as the internet should be controlled by those with money? That because someone has more money (say the IKEA guy), they should get much more of a say than you do?

    15. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      Really? I guess all the US residents that are strongly opposed to the war in Iraq should just vote out Donald Rumsfeld in November.

      I'm not trying to promote a political view here, I'm just making a point.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    16. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      Because the ITU falls under the control of the UN. At the UN, both the US and Europe have much less influence and control. By handing 'control of the Internet' over to the UN, the developed nations would run the risk of less developed nations using their new found control as a bargaining chip against the US/Europe in other matters.

      I'd like to see a list of the biggest financial backers of the UN. I'd be willing to bet that the lion's share of funding comes from North American and Western Europe. The ITU's board seems to be split up pretty fairly, but let's face it, nothing happens unless someone pays for it.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    17. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by gclef · · Score: 1

      Competition in WHAT? The point of IANA is to be the one authoritative source for IPv4 and v6 allocations. You can't have competition in whether an entry is in a database...it either is, or it isn't. Whoever has the authority to allocate IPs is immediately in a monopoly position.

      In fact, for IP allocation, there *must* be a monopoly party keeping track of the central database, because the net was designed with the assumption that IPs would be organizationally unique. If you have two different parties both claiming authority over 111.22.44.2, who wins? How do you route that? (note: yes, you can do anycast, but that's still one organization claiming the IP...when two competing orgs claim the same block, you have problems.)

      Competition for IANA's tasks would be incredibly stupid.

    18. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

      Well under normal circumstances I would say that a corporation is in some ways more democratic than any government, for example you may choose not to buy their services.

      However you have outlined a good point with ICANN, it's not a "normal" corporate situation where you can simply buy the services of a competitor. The enemy is ICANN's autocracy here, not whether or not it's a government or corporate institution.

    19. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The humorous part of that is that ICANN *IS* a government body (of the US). It may be officially independent, but only in the sense that an MS funded independent study is.

      Now it USED to be an independent body. It was getting into trouble because it wasn't obeying it's constitution and holding elections. This changed around 1990 or so, when the US govt. recognized it. Since then nobody's said anything about elections. I believe that the standing board voted to modify their constitution so that elections were no longer required (in more violation of their authorizing constitution).

      I have approaching zero respect for ICANN's integrity, honesty, or fairness.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    20. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by citog · · Score: 1

      This was the best I could find. Have a look around on that site for 'arrears' as well. It's interesting. I didn't find anything on un.org - didn't look that hard, mind.

    21. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      Good stuff. Thanks for the link!

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    22. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about? ICANN came about after Jon Postel died. Prior to that, Jon WAS IANA! ICANN didn't exist until the late 90s.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    23. Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world by takasuz · · Score: 1

      I do not see why an authoritative role had to be eternally entrusted to a single company. A govenment is an authority but there always is a possiblity of take-over by another party through a democratic election. That is (at least in theory) what prevents a govenment from corruption and over-spending our tax money.

      In the present case, the work that is to be done is not a product development but mainly administrative tasks. For the administrative tasks you would simply pick a company that could do the best service with the minimal cost.

      Of course if you simply assume the Internet is so precious and a for-profit company should not be trusted for the tasks, there is no choice but to pay whatever the money your entrusted company asks. It is just same as what a govenment agency does to the tax-payers.

      The task should be authoratative but that does not necessarily mean a single company should have a monopoly over the job position.

  5. $15 million by Ianoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how much of this has gone to lawyers who are defending them from the idiots over at Verisign?

    1. Re:$15 million by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "We also question the appropriateness of ICANN operating any Root Servers directly.... There are many in the community more suitably qualified to run the Root Servers than ICANN...."

      Makes you wonder whether CENTR is getting kickbacks from Verisign.

  6. Better off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's better than what the UN would charge for this (I shudder to think)

    1. Re:Better off by CountBrass · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The only problem with the UN?: The fact that the world's richest country refuses to pay the money it owes and has treaty obligations to hand-over to fund the UN.

      The reason? As Iraq as shown: The US doesn't honour it's own Constituion (see the election of El Presidente Dublya) nor international treaties: not even the Geneva convention.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    2. Re:Better off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent trolling young apprentice... Now use the words "cowboy mentality" and "wmd" and we shall crush their petty rebellion. evil laughter

    3. Re:Better off by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      It's unfortunate that the parent was modded a flamebait as he happens to make a very valid point. The current US administration has not been honoring the international treaties that it is a party to. Glossing over the whole "legality" of Bush's appointment to the office of President, there are the issues of the Geneva convention, the Kyoto Agreement and several others which, if I had the time and the caffeine, I would cite here.

      The fact is, for the past several years, we haven't been playing by the rules. The dues that the US owes to the United Nations is a very good example of why we, as US citizens, would not want an international body controlling the Internet. We haven't been paying the bills and the Internet would be used as a measure of control and influence over our policies and practices. The US economy has come to rely on the Net too greatly to give up such a significant measure of control.

      It is far better for our own concerns to keep that control for our own.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    4. Re:Better off by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      The only problem with the UN?: The fact that the world's richest country refuses to pay the money it owes and has treaty obligations to hand-over to fund the UN.

      Actually most of the money has already been paid.

      Although folk are moderating this point as flamebait, it is very relevant. There is a lot of complaining in the US about the UN from people who resent any check on US power. The most extreeme version of this being the black helicopter crowd who believe the UN is bent on world domination.

      In practice the type of issue that gets decided at the UN is the very mundane detailed sort of issue like how telephone numbers are assigned. These can be critical issues, but very rarely.

      The events in Iraq show what happens when the people who resent checks on US power get to just do what they want without restraint. After ignoring and insulting the UN, Bush is now clinging to the hope it can save the situation in Iraq before November.

      At this point the 'check on US power' issue is dead. It will be twenty years at a minimum before any US President is going to start another unilateral adventure. By that time the world will be very different.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:Better off by cranktheguy · · Score: 1

      legality? re-read the constitution. it went by the books. he won florida, and thus the majority of the states. and we are following the letter of the geneva convention (if not the spirit, but spirit these days has died thanks to lawyers). and we have not signed on under the geneva convention as of yet, so it does not affect us. anyways, the u.n. is a dead organization. nothing can get done there. too many chiefs and not enough indians. i mean, if they cannot agree that a certain former iraqi leader broke a treaty to them by not allowing weapons inspectors, then they obviously are controlled by polotics and not the truth.

      --
      yeah, that's about it
    6. Re:Better off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and we have not signed on under the geneva convention as of yet, so it does not affect us. anyways"

      There are 4 Geneva conventions

      1864 - signed by the USA in 1882
      1906 -
      1929
      1949 - ratified by the USA in 1955

      There are also the Geneva Protocols (most recently 1977). The latter relate to treatment of combatants in guerilla wars. The USA has signed these but Congress did not ratify them. I would suspect the latter is what you are thinking of.

    7. Re:Better off by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      ICANN's claim to fame: "We're faster and cheaper than the United Nations!"

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    8. Re:Better off by Khaed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, there's nothing wrong with the UN. (Linked story: UN troops buy sex from teenage refugees in Congo camp.)

    9. Re:Better off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Yes the USA has signed the Geneva convention and has even ratified it.

      2. Yes the USA is violating the letter of the convention simply calling them enemy combatants does not change Article 4 of the convention.

    10. Re:Better off by BCW2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The US covers HALF the total UN budget. We are willing to reduce that to our "fair share" at any time. Then the rest of you lazy bastards can pick up the slack. Or go away, doesn't matter.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  7. Good by UberOogie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering they only need $1 million to do their core duties, I'd be asking for a fairly detailed itemized bill before I fork over twice as much as last year with no increase in operating costs.

    --
    "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
  8. The internet will be fine.. by Tuvai · · Score: 3, Funny

    as long as Christmas Island coughs up its share of the bill

  9. Open source? by midifarm · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Does it really cost that much to run a bunch of DNS servers? Couldn't we have some sort of open source type community based DNS service for the world?

    Peace

    1. Re:Open source? by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      The article states that CENTR specifically does not want ICANN running the root servers. The budget for ICANN is composed of lots of other administrative costs related to tracking domain name registrations.

      As for a community-based DNS system, its just a bit expensive to run a server that takes that much traffic. Sure, you can cache and mirror stuff all over the place, but the information has to start somewhere, and you can't have the delay between the root and the millions of community DNS nodes get incredibly long.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:Open source? by Neophytus · · Score: 1

      Like OpenNIC then?

    3. Re:Open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their website died in 2002.

      I really don't think with a track record like that they're going to be challenging verisign any day soon.

  10. In other news by Sv1ad · · Score: 2, Funny

    ....the Internet is auctioned off to the highest bidder. Microsoft goes broke trying to out-bid McDonalds for control of the Internet....

  11. Hey by loyalsonofrutgers · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey, evil isn't cheap.

    1. Re:Hey by mabu · · Score: 1

      Now if only ICANN had an evil lair in the middle of the Pacific ocean they'd rock!

  12. Wow by arvindn · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...without the rest of the world on side, ICANN is master of nothing but its own backyard. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has already made it clear that it would like to take over, and if ICANN can't get worldwide consensus, the ITU will be in a strong position.

    Could ICANN be committing suicide the way XFree86 did?

  13. ICANN spend money by darkonc · · Score: 1

    != that I should.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  14. Mexican stand-off??? by malia8888 · · Score: 3, Funny
    We have a Mexican stand-off and currently ICANN has more to lose. ®

    Two points here. 1. It appears given this letter/slapdown that ICANN now stands for ICANT-because-of-no-money

    2. "The Register" has forgotten its political correctness by referring to this problem as a "Mexican stand-off". Wow, the Mexican ambassador is going to be flaming them something fierce :P

    --
    Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
    1. Re:Mexican stand-off??? by ignipotentis · · Score: 4, Funny
      "The Register" has forgotten its political correctness

      When was the last time you read el Reg?
      --
      Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
    2. Re:Mexican stand-off??? by CountBrass · · Score: 0, Troll

      The Register is a UK web site. In the UK we're not quite as obsessviely politically correct as the US: I suspect it's because we lack the whole history etc around domestic slavery, the civil rights movement etc etc.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    3. Re:Mexican stand-off??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The British lack slavery? Since when? Domestically, the Irish were the first group of people that were oppressed due to British superiority, then after the Irish it was the Africans, then the Native Americans. The Puritans were still British, even if they no longer lived there, and so were the people that went to South Africa to help the Dutch discriminate against the majority African population. Just because there's some imperialism doesn't hide that fact that all the people under British rule were oppressed, and the indigent people in their colonies were exploited.

    4. Re:Mexican stand-off??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the first group of people that were oppressed due to British superiority

      We can hardly help being superior. Maybe the rest of you should try to achieve the same standard?

  15. ICANN doesn't run DNS servers by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Informative

    ICANN doesn't run the DNS servers -- it's just reponsible for policy, assigning numbers and address ranges to avoid conflict, etc.

    I would guess that the costs go to pay for engineers who know what they're talking about.

    Of course, the ICANN meeting locations look like the typical VP-wants-to-tour-the-world-on-the-company-dollar deal.

    However, in general, while ICANN isn't perfect, I'd have to say that they're a lot more The Good Guys than, say, certain other folks...and their entire yearly budget is probably less than what certain other folks (*cough* Verisign) pick up through misleading or netabuse-encouraging sales in a week.

    1. Re:ICANN doesn't run DNS servers by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Saying that you can find worse people isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. OTOH, I would say that it's both accurate, and more praise than ICANN deserves. I.e., while it is, indeed, accurate, ICANN doesn't deserve that much defense.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  16. ICANN Budget by dncsky1530 · · Score: 2, Informative
    ICANN 2004 Budget
    Main Points:
    • "Four years ago as part of the approval of the 1999-2000 budget, the Board stated: "It is the intention of the ICANN Board to create a reserve account of at least one year's operating expenditures, to be funded over several fiscal years." Approval by the Board of the 1999-2000 budget implied that the Board accepted this statement about the appropriate level of reserves."
    • 2002 .com domains: 33,333,000, 2003 .com domains: 31,819,000
    • An increase in both staffing and expenditures to accommodate the additional programmatic requirements imposed by the new reforms and the new bylaws, that is, the transition from ICANN 1.0 to ICANN 2.0. This would require up to an additional 10 FTE (see below).
  17. monetary contributions from organizations by john_uy · · Score: 1
    just some suggestions, there are already organizations that are helping "run" and do policy development in the internet. maybe organizations such as iana, ripe, arin, apnic, aso, can contribute some. or since the internet is a global resource, maybe there can be a change in fees structure that will be charged for domains and ip addresses being used (though being done now.) but a better way maybe is to merge the functions.


    it is quite confusing for me (so someone can clarify here) that there are overlapping functions. imho, maybe a tree structure may work with representatives from each region (ripe, lacnic, arin, apnic, afrinic) then all under one reporting body?

    --
    Live your life each day as if it was your last.
  18. In related news... by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

    Scientist announced today that Europa, one of the larger moons of Jupiter, harbors intelligent life. ICANN immediately responded to this by insisting that the Europans chip in to help pay for the internet.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  19. Hah... by cagle_.25 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Without us Sumerians, you wouldn't have writing! You hereby owe us 699.99 dinars per character ... no, wait, wrong joke ... umm... Soviet Russia ... no ... tinfoil hat ... forget it.

    --
    Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
  20. Michael! Michael! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your beloved governmental agency is growing faster than any liberal could have predicted!

    Enjoy! Maybe Michael Moore can raise some money for them.

  21. What if ICANN vanished? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Personally, I don't really want to see the Internet become an issue that gets rolled into trade negotiations. The Europeans don't want to see ICANN folded into under the wings of the ITU. But they are fed up with the ways things are being run at ICANN, and holding up funding is just a temporary tactic designed to try and bring about some change at ICANN.

    Why not the UN? Do you have a major problem with the way that telephone numbers or satelite orbitals are allocated?

    The UN already decides whether a 'country' TLD should be created. The RFC deliberately ceedes that decision to the ISO country code committee. That is how Palestine has a country code.

    Very little would change if ICANN disappeared entirely. The IANA function is the sort of thing that could and should have been done using a database with a web interface. There really is not that much to assigning code points. OSI and Web services both have much better schemes (OIDs, URIs).

    The country codes would be managed in pretty much the same way as they are today by the same people. There would be no new non country TLDs but none of the new ones have been remotely successful. The holdup on services like the domain name waitlist would end but that will happen anyway.

    About all that would change is that the ICANN staff would not get paid and the farce of the ICANN conferences in obscure parts of the world would end.

    About the only thing that would change is that as an international treaty organization the ITU could not be sued.

    ICANN does actually have a point about the root servers. Only four of them survived the DDoS attack. Of the nine that went under some were pretty respectable. Others are worse than useless. The Internet depends on these servers, there is no excuse not to operate them at telco level reliability.

    The ITU is going to absorb ICANN in the end. It is just a matter of time.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    1. Re:What if ICANN vanished? by thogard · · Score: 0, Troll

      I think one of the 1st things the ITU will do is revoke all existing class A address and give notice to all class B holder to reduce their holdings. Then I expect the existing class A address space to be split up by the most complex way any group of people could think of based mostly on population potential relative to existing ip address assignments and existing social boundires or something like that.

    2. Re:What if ICANN vanished? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just move to IPv6. Hey, a guy can dream...

    3. Re:What if ICANN vanished? by feargal · · Score: 1

      I can't tell - do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

      --
      "A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
    4. Re:What if ICANN vanished? by thogard · · Score: 1

      Revoking class A? Tahts a good thing. ITU vs ICANN? Thats about picking the worse of two evils.

  22. ICANN, the destination resort by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    ICANN holds meetings as if it were some big-time international organization. It's Esther Dyson's "queen of the Internet" arrogance. They need to downgrade a bit. Here's their July meeting announcement:

    • You'll be guaranteed a tan this summer if you come to ICANN Kuala Lumpur which takes place from 19-23 July.

      Be a part of the meeting and enjoy the beauty and hospitality of Kuala Lumpur where the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), will be your host. The meeting will take place in the award winning Shangri-La Hotel, Kuala Lumpur. Centrally located in KL's Golden Triangle the meeting venue is centrally located to allow guests easy access to the best of Kuala Lumpur's sights and sounds.

      Set against the vibrant backdrop of KL, ICANN Kuala Lumpur will also be an opportunity for you to meet, network and interact with the Malaysian communications and multimedia community and industry.

      So book your berth to ICANN Kuala Lumpur by registering early. ...

      There's always lots to see and do in Kuala Lumpur. KL really is the city that never sleeps. From late night latte to night clubs, from some of the world's best scuba diving spots to tropical jungle getaways and some of Asia's best golf courses, you'll find yourself spoilt for choice.

    They're all like that. The last four were in Rio, Montreal, Carthage, and Rome.

  23. Talk about inefficiency.... by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Europe sticks up two fingers at ICANN budget", while over here in the States, we can do the same job with only one.

    1. Re:Talk about inefficiency.... by anno1602 · · Score: 1

      This is a perfect example of why the Brits aren't European.

  24. "grew out"? No...got too old... by FatSean · · Score: 1

    ...Move aside and let your betters take over :D You only 'grew out' of the weenie size measuring race when you realized you had no hope..har har

    Besides, it ain't just the protocols...it was the original and still major location of infrastructure.

    --
    Blar.
  25. Name change by poohsuntzu · · Score: 2, Funny

    From ICANN to ICAN'T

    -dodges the incoming flames-

    It's early..

    --
    "We're breaking out the ramen noodles. . . "
    "Really? Is it someone's birthday?"
  26. Help me understand why a database costs so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me see, everyone runs their own DNS servers, so no overhead there.
    DNS servers contain all the data needed.
    These people are just the central place to "register" your name = IP.
    Once registered, it costs them nothing except a SLOW internet connection ($100 a month?) and some electricity. (they need no speed because once the data is out on all the DNS servers they handle the bandwidth)
    So why can some broke dude do this in his low class apartment?
    Do you people always make something so simple turn into a major government type operation where you need more and more and more all the time?

    Car registration is the same thing, just a database, what are you doing about cutting that government cost?

  27. Hmm, what about slashdotting.... by BSDCoder · · Score: 1

    ...Did they even budget for bandwidth costs due to slashdotting icann.org?

  28. 16$ millions by wilddur · · Score: 1

    May be it is not too much. But if you are spending much more than is needed t is a waste of money. Moreover. If yo want to control and impose conditions and at the same time make other people pay more than is needed it is a bad thing for everybody. Monopolies tends to make services unsussually expensive. And goverments begin with 16$ millions here, 20 millions theres... and never stop wasting... so there is US deficit.

  29. Grew out of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think not. Your colonies, including the US, kicked your asses out. You didn't grow out of anything, you got beat down.

    1. Re:Grew out of it? by GrassMunk · · Score: 1

      Ironic that the same is happening in Iraq. Now all they need is the french to come help them and you'll have an Iraqi Declaration of Independance. Bush will prolly call it something like 'Decl-aire-ation of Ter-or-ism' of somesuch. The only reason US aint gonna get beat down is that weapons cost a whole hell of a lot more nowadays.

  30. How ICANN works by dozer · · Score: 1

    For those of you that don't know how ICANN operates, here is a transcript of one of their meetings. It's really eye opening.

  31. Everyone has flaws by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    That's not the UN's doing, rather that of the people working for them. Soldiers aren't exactly considered the most decent people, either.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Everyone has flaws by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      Much like U.S. Soldiers running prison camps?

    2. Re:Everyone has flaws by Khaed · · Score: 1

      What I was replying to:

      The only problem with the UN?: The fact that the world's richest country refuses to pay the money it owes and has treaty obligations to hand-over to fund the UN.

      My point was that the UN doesn't just have "one problem." No group that is made up of people has only _one_ problem. (unless the problem is "that it's made up of flawed _people_.")

      The UN isn't made up of magical perfect beings who are right all the time and would be perfect to take over for ICANN, and the US not paying the UN isn't the "only problem with the UN." The UN wouldn't be perfect all the sudden if the US threw a shitload more money their way, either.

      I was just taking issue with the "the only problem with the UN" statement. I'm not claiming the UN in general is flawed, or that the US is perfect, that soldiers are all great, wonderful people, or that soldiers are all evil assholes, either. No sweeping assumptions or declarations.

    3. Re:Everyone has flaws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I'm aware, no one is suggesting the (very few) soldiers who are involved in the actions at Abu Ghraib take over the internet, so I think you're a bit off topic bringing it up.

  32. I have the solution by blair1q · · Score: 3, Funny


    Give the job back to Jon Postel.

    Improve efficiency immeasurably.

    1. Re:I have the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and he will rise from the dust to pick up the money!

      What Icann can't, dead people do!

  33. Re:Michael! Michael! by HiThere · · Score: 1

    ICANN is not officially a government agency. It's been recognized by congress, but officially it's not a government agency. This means that the checks that used to normally apply to government agencies aren't applied to ICANN.

    OTOH, since ICANN is recognized by the US govt., and the US has delegated certain of it's powers to it, calling it a private company is a bit ... strange. ICANN *used* to be a private company. It used to be a non-profit organization operating under a set of by-laws that provided for periodic elections. A board got in that refused to hold new elections. Then they, in violation of their own by-laws, modified the by-laws so that they weren't obligated to hold elections. At about this same time they were recognized by the US govt as the officially approved body for allocating IP ranges (up until then it was a non-governmental agreement).

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  34. Two Words: by DA-MAN · · Score: 1

    Nigga Please!

    --
    Can I get an eye poke?
    Dog House Forum
  35. Electricity??? Wow! by saroth2 · · Score: 1


    <emotion>
    <sarcastic>Lig htning is electricity! Are you saying that the british invented lightning as well?! Wow, I had no idea you did so much!</sarcastic>
    </emotion>

  36. Telling it like it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To say the US were brought in due to faulty intelligence isn't even true...if only. In fact, the only theory that fits all the facts is that our selected-not-quite-elected leaders took us into Iraq out of blinded junkie-lust for oil....

    Unless you don't mean 'intelligence' as information...

  37. Internet meetings... by SteveXE · · Score: 1

    You would think the rulers of the internet would hold their meetings online to show how smart and efficient they are. Netmeeting anyone?

  38. New source of funding? by Ankle · · Score: 1

    Perhaps ICANN should start acquring money on the internet through other means, pr0n seems to be pretty successful to me and seems a logical step. It is after all why the internet is around. Perhaps enforce some sort of pr0n levy?