Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Calls For Public Meeting on ICANN Replacement
Glyn writes "The Register is reporting that the US government is holding a public meeting at the end of July over what should happen to ICANN when its contract is renewed in September. In the meantime, it has opened a public comment board where you are able to email comments for the US government and the rest of the world to see. The board is open now but comments need to be sent by this Friday, 7 July. The email postal address is DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov."
"the email postal address is..." Must be going to Ted Stevens' office.
Email postal address? This must be part of the US Government's revolutionary new program to send mail from place to place via the postal service allowing actual paper mail to be sent from place to place rather than just data! Revolutionary!
The last time ICANN was discussed in detail here, it was with regards to the .xxx TLD. Inevitably, the discussion descended into a bit of a flame-war regarding the neutrality of the entire process, given ICANN being a 'US-influenced' governing body.
So, if no-one country controls the internet, do my American friends agree that the time has come to create a new body to oversee the decision making process. A truly global body for a truly global infrastructure.
Personally, I do think it is right that all groups get an equal say in the future of the internet. We've got to work together otherwise we run the risk of fragmentation, which is the last thing anyone (apart from China I guess) wants. What say you guys?
(I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this question was always going to be asked...
About the rest of the world on this one. ICANN affects all of them and I dont think that the rest of the world will like the US going: "Well ICANN just isnt doing what we want. So guess what, were thinking of getting rid of them! IANA will be on the chopping block also. HEY AMERICA! Any thoughts?"
Is there another orgainzation out there that is doing this or is it time to move to IPv6 and an international organization for the Domains and IPs out there.
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
There are several different viewpoints that can be taken here:
US Federal Government view point (as expressed by the US State Department):
- The internet was developed with US Government money (and therefore US Government property)
- We allow foriegn interests access but as long as they play by our rules (eg: stay in your own domain)
- We will allow anything that furthers our country's interest (eg: promotes trade with the US, preferable in US favour)
Now has the previous incumbent (ICANN) abided and/or promoted the above?
Much as people loathe ICANN it has probably has stayed true to the above statements.
Other countries will probably want to dispute the first item (the rest will crumble) however you are going to have to butt heads with the a group of extremely stubborn (in their view patriotic) bureaucrats.
Even if ICANN was to be replaced / restructured / whatever, I have some serious doubts if its actions will change.
Zombie Engineer
He wants to liberate Cyberspace! Such lofty ideals should resonate with the present administration!!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Major US companies like Google, Yahoo, Sun, AOL all dominate the internet commercially and our government feels left out of the billions of dollars that they have made. If they quit giving those huge businesses tax breaks then they can make a few bucks. Now they want to screw with the neutrality and to fund their own investments in telecoms and disassociate a perfectly neutral ICANN with the net so they can find other ways to squeeze a dime out of the pockets of us in the long run.
always remember it could be someone worse then icann that replaces them. we used to think janet reno was the scariest AG now look who we have.
Just a thought
ps. and no i dont like icann
World Encompassing Corporation....
The problem with ICANN is that it seems to cater to the needs, whims, fancies, monpoloies, viewpoints of a ver few entities based in the US.. whereas the internet, in reality, is World Encompassing. Every nation should have representation based on the number of servers hosted in it's soil, amount of bandwidth generated, etc.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
This is the sort of news that I wish dominated slashdot, instead of the more inane microsoft vs linux vs everything else. The overwhelming number of trival Apple did this today articles could be toned down too.
Did you have any idea that this meeting was happening before you read it here? I sure didn't. We (as a community) are probably one of the most qualified to offer a public comment to the board. Kudos to the editors for posting it.
Also, please don't whine about how the US is trying to control the internet until you've at least sent a public comment to the people who need to here it most.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
IJARR
WARNING: Smoking this sig may cause lowered IQ, insanity or short term memory loss. It is also really bad for your monit
It looks like they're about to get ICANNED. :-)
[ducking]
certainly to be fair the USA did invent the internet, and has been gracious enough to share it with the rest of the world.
...etc get pissed and split off and set up their own DNS/IPspace... fragmenting the internet in to multiple seperate networks.... which i doubt anyone really wants ...
the desire for the U.S. to retain oversight of DNS/IP space issues is understandable.
the danger that in trying to maintain the status quo, the EU or Chinese
as I recall a few months ago the USA was pretty insistant that control over DNS was going to remain as it was. Now they are seemingly looking for broad input...maybe a sign that they are willing to compromise to ensure that the nightmare scenario of fragmentation does not occur?
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
The replacement for ICANN should first and foremost not be beholden to any government; and secondly be populated by those who understand what the Internet is - not politicians, accountants, managers, economists, philosophers, etc.
Open elections for qualified candidates should be voted upon by a similar pool of qualified voters.
Things should return to people who know what they are doing, care, and have an interest in moving things forward. Have you noticed how progress has essentially stopped once the politicos got involved?
I hope every slashdotter will mail them, just like I have: Dear Sir/Madam, I, as a citizen of Ireland and the EU, think with respect, the Internet should have a world governing body, fairly appointed by each country who has more than 30% of their respective populations online. For those under 30% they should get to have a sub-committee, to prioritise and promote the Internet in their country's. I think while although ICANN has generally not been a bad governing body, vast improvements can be made, such as not allowing pressure from companies to increase domain prices, when the cost of providing them has come down dramatically over the past few years. I do recognise, that the Internet was partially created with the help of U.S. government funding, but this comes from the people of America, who would want the Internet to be a force for change, like for example, the way it is helping Chinese dissidents.Also, as with all US government generated ideas, it is free from patent and copyright which applies worldwide, such as NASA images, for example. This should be true of the Internet also, as it is with GPS (which I use regularly, Thanks for that!). I am not a whole believer in the U.N. however, I think the Internet governing body should be free form all Government and International organisational pressures (but not those that seek to limit abuse, such as child pornography, obviously). I thank you for offering a public debate on this issue and I sincerely hope the outcome will be of benefit to everyone living on earth. Thank you, Neil Grogan
--- Duey Finster http://www.dueyfinster.com
Sometimes consensus is not the best way to go. Most *working* modern structures require some sort of "benevolent dictator". Well there should be limits but I know for a fact that giving everybody an equal voice distracts from focus. As they say: "Camels are horses designed by consensus"
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
With all due respect , the status quo is fine . It's all good . Yes , there are interests and money flying around and some small issues , but frankly the current situations is much better than having a multi-headed International even more interest-torn organization .
My Starcraft 2 Blog
That's what was always the beauty of IP, right ? Everything can be decentralized - packet fails to travel over default route ? Throw it over another route. Mail fails to be delivered through default MTA ? Try the second MTA. Piece of the net goes down ? No worries - the rest is still holding up. That very thought is the beauty and the strength of IP, and that's what we should keep. There are, of course, many 'subcategories' of the internet that are in dire need of a rebuild (CA's, email, DNS, IPv4 -> IPv6) but on the whole it's a terrific system. The same goes for what ICANN does; the number-space is already allotted to other parties (RIPE etc.) and _is_ in fact already decentralized; the naming system can be decentralized as well (replicating root servers accross the globe held by different organizations); administratively, you could implement a simple system of voting among these organizations to help them with their decisionmaking (the .xxx TLD ?) This is the first argument; that it's simple to do and in the spirit of things.
The second argument would be that, in this time of inflated panic, it would be fantastic if the global IT community could set an example for the rest of the spectre of human endevour; namely that it's a small world and we all have to live in it together.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Because I don't want a group that rules by fiat. ICANN's power comes purely form the fact that peopel choose to listen to them. They've no real enforcement power. What happens is the roots trust ICANN. That is to say that ICANN gives out a root rone file that the root-servers.net roots use. Those roots are then what most DNS servers trust, meaning if they need info they don't have, they ask the roots where to look.
But that's all just a de facto agreement. The roots could, at any time, stop accepting ICANN updates, or start listinging to someone else as well. Likewise you already can have your DNS servers pointed at additonal or alternate roots. There's a number of them out there, OpenNIC being one.
So it's a situation similar to search engines, just with ICANN being even larger than Google. There can be, and are, alternative lookup systems. The ICANN roots are just the de facto standard.
Ok well the problem is if you create a new body with legslative power, suddenly this all goes away. The UN, or whoever runs it, mandidates that this is the ONLY DNS roots and you all play ball with them. They do what they please with it, including caving to the demands of the many undemocratic members, and there's fuck-all you can do about it.
What really needs to happen is that if other orginizations like the EU want their own DNS they need to stop bitching and put their money where their mouth is. Make a set of root servers, good ones, well ocnnected and stable like the root-servers.net roots. Don't make them take the ICANN zone file directly, however. Have them talk to your own org, EUCANN or whatever. Initally, just have it copy the ICANN zone file, subject to approval. Then, once you've got yourself established as a good credible system, talk to ICANN about splitting the zone duties. EUCANN gets all the domains in its' area, ICANN keeps the rest, they both mirror each other's zones.
I don't want to see the existing infastructure, which works quite well, handed over to the UN.
These squabbles should be completely meaningless. In a case like this, we do not need their infrastructure, and the united peoples of the internet should be building our own.
I don't know what a system that would keep us free and remain true to the internets roots would look like, but perhaps the distributed dns project might be one option.
A few individuals with enthusiasm and a sympathetic cause is much better than a government.
Does ICANN need to be replaced or reformed into something almost entirely new? You Betcha!
.com to Verisign. But when I decided to look at how ICANN spends its money, they decided to unlawfully block me, forcing me to sue 'em (I won) - ICANN reacted by erasing public seats on the board of directors.
.com customers into Verisign's bank account (this is based on an estimate of the cost of about $0.03 to deliver the service that ICANN allows Verisign to charge $7.00 for.)
A few years back I was elected to the ICANN board - and I voted against all the junk that is today being recognized as a disaster, such as the perpetual grant of
Today, ICANN has erased virtually all forms of public participation - to the degree that you and I can't even observe how ICANN makes its decisions. Yet, at the same time the dns registries (Verisign et al), all the big telcos, and the intellectual property get the red carpet treatment - to the degree that ICANN is now gifting some on the order $300,000,000 per yer out of the pockets of captive
ICANN, with the help of NTIA, is really nothing more than a mideavel guild - it sets product descriptions, terms of sale, and choses who can be a member of the guild. In modern terms it is a combination in restraint of trade. Those are often illegal in the US and elsewhere, but few are willing to play hardball and ask that question in court because of the hand of the US government agency, NTIA, that rests on ICANN's shoulder. Yet NTIA, like many of the actions of todays US gov't are based on rather fancyful readings of the constitution or statutes and may, when reviewed, be found to be excessive claims.
So it is quite appropriate that people remember that tomorrow is the 4th of July - and should remember that just as the Declaration of Independence cited grievances against King George III, you should send your concerns and complaints to NTIA by the 7th.
Exactly.
....
There is no technical reason that an alternative DNS system couldn't be developed and used. Nothing prevents a completely separate set of root servers and name space. The fact that almost everyone is using the current set of root name servers is a historical accident. Build out your own alternate root name servers and name spaces, point your resolvers to them and have a good time.
Meantime, leave things alone in the "real" DNS. If the "alternate" DNS provides better service eventually folks will transition there. If not
Yes you (the US) created the networking protocols but guess what, The world wide web was created by CERN which is comprised of European countries. Without Europe websites WOULD NOT EXIST. The government is acting in an extremely stupid manner. Supposing they get rid of ICANN and put in place a system controlled by the US government. Will Europe and most of the rest of the world like that? Not a chance. Supposing that net neutrality bill comes through and European ISPs suddenly have to pay to send their traffic to the US, I'll imagine they'll like that even less. With the net suddenly controlled by a single government and business from that country, I'd give it... 3 months before the US net becomes isolated and the rest of the world has it's own net. Remember the great depression? One of the leading reasons for it was isolationism. Considering how much the net it worth to businesses, having the US net seperate from the rest of the world would hit overseas business hugely. These companies stop making money, share prices go down, investment funds start to devalue, smaller banks start getting uneasy and calling in loans and selling assets.... Oh lookie, a stock market crash!
I was thinking about it, and then I remembered that there was the *.int domain.
BTW, http://www.un.int/ does work as well, and is the "actual" URL for the UN as an international agency.
Nothing else to see here.... move along.
All this back and forth about who is responsible for the Internet is really irrelevant now, isn't it? The fact is, there is a system in place, and the US govt is seeking comments on how well that system is working (or not). The notice that the article refers to assumes that ICANN's contract will be renewed. The hearing is not going to impact whether the contract is renewed. It may impact some of the terms of the renewal. So, instead of trying to prove who pwns the Internet, focus on what the current "administration" needs to do to foster continued development/proliferation, not on who the "administration" should be.
Give it to the UN, and you watch what happens to the net. ANYONE who questions their dictate, will be cut off of the net. The UN is about as anticapitalist as it gets. I mean come on, putting Sudan, Iran on the board of human rights? What a joke.....not to mention the oil for food scandal....
Why should I trade one tyrant a thousand miles away for a thousand tyrants one mile away?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The finances issue was not a question of "transparency" or "good governance".
It is the *purpose* of a board of directors to oversee how an organization spends money. ICANN did not have a legitimate reason to hide budget information from a board member because they *couldn't* have a good reason because there can never be a good reason.
An organization which goes to court rather than let its board do its fundamental job is gravely ill and may be incurable.
And then ICANN makes a new revision to compete, ICANN2. Shortly following is the prerelease version of EU's version, EUCANN0 (EUCANN aught). Then other countries will band together and make WECANN, THEYCANN...
Shame on Slashdot. How dare you take my posting and turn it into sensationalistic crap!
==> US government asks for comments on how Net is run Sunday July 02, @10:51PM Rejected
I really have to agree with many who have been on slashdot for so many years. This kind of crap degrades Slashdot's credability.
Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
Thats news to me, an IT in the US Navy. Apparently the Senator decided not to do his homework, DOD does NOT have its own Internet. We *do* have an intranet called NIPRNet that gives service members Internet access. What a bonehead.
Thank you for that information, now I *do* have an alternative to us stuff. (I didn't swear, I didn't shout and scream). Let's put it simple, political reasons, world politics wants me to use as little us stuff as possible, boycott us, that's what I wanna do. In every possible way. It's hard. But your "country" is getting way screwed up and I think the internet root needs to be everyones and not in the hands of madmen like us.
-m10
Why fight instead of share technology together?? My $0.000000002
He's referring to the old adage about a 'pot calling the kettle black.' I.e., accusing someone of something while being simultaneously guilty of it yourself.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
So you agree that there aren't any real arguments against allowing .xxx and that everybody is actually engaging in a slippery-slope argument?
.xxx, .mobi, etc.
.mobi thing in particular is stupid, and nothing but a money-grab by the registrars, since it's just as easy to standardize on using "mobi" as a prefix instead of a TLD: e.g., the mobile version of the Coke website is mobi.coke.com; it's a simple matter to have mobile devices check for a "mobi." site anytime an address is entered, before pulling up the regular version if it doesn't exist.)
.xxx or .sex. It would have no value: if you can't guarantee that all porn will be contained within that TLD, then you still have to maintain the same sort of white or blacklists as today. The benefit at all, if there is one, is very small to those doing the filtering. At best, it would reduce the size of their blacklist databases by a few hundred K -- and probably not even that: most existing porn sites would just dual-register (and I find it hard to believe in the extreme that most new ones wouldn't as well, just on the off chance that they'd pick up some business from the occasional person in an ".xxx blocked" area who had access to a credit card, or just from name recognition). The result would probably be a dramatic increase in the total number of URLs which led to porn: just as many in the existing TLDs, plus the entirety of the new .xxx or .sex TLD.
.xxx cannot be their ultimate goal.
.xxx were created, and if it was even mentioned to the public that the purpose of it was to limit access to porn, it is quite easy to imagine that after its voluntary use is an abject failure, that there develops sufficent political pressure in some countries to make its use mandatory. This isn't some tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory: it's utterly believable and totally within the realm of contemporary U.S. politics.
.xxx would be a disaster, and this disaster can only occur if .xxx exists (and conversely, it cannot occur if .xxx is never created), it's a no-brainer that creating it is a bad idea.
.xxx is a good idea, and given that there are a substantial number of very well-placed concerns with the 'ghettoization' of the Internet, I think we have been absolutely correct thus far to reject all "porn" TLDs.
I certainly do not agree. I think that creating a new TLD without suffient compelling reason for its existence is a bad thing. Outside of a good reason why it should exist, I am against creating new ones. This goes for
(The
Also, your outright rejection of an argument because you call it a "slippery slope" is naive. If doing x makes y more likely to occur, and y is something bad, then it might be a bad idea to do x. There are many valid 'slippery slope' arguments, and they're valid when the first action makes subsequent undesirable actions more likely to occur. In short: an outright rejection of anything that looks like a slippery slope argument without considering it is as uninsightful as an outright rejection of all actions because of specious slippery slope concerns.
Virtually nobody whose ultimate goal is filtering porn is interested in purely optional use of
Since this outcome -- an increase in the apparent number of porn sites (porn URLs, anyway) is inconsistent with the goals of virtually everyone trying to limit access to porn, it stands to reason that the purely optional use of
Which brings me to my other point: if
Since I think that the mandatory position of
Absent any compelling reasons why creating
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."