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."
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.
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)
As a European, I feel more confident in the future of the Internet if DNS remains into American control than if it were to be placed into the hands of a UN-like international body. There are too many dictatorships in the world who would seek to hinder freedom on the net, and who often rise to positions they are unworthy of in international bodies (remember the fiasco with the UN human rights commission?); and there are too many small, underdeveloped countries whose votes can simply be bought (and routinely are in the UN assembly).
Well, as the AC says, the UN is essentially beholden to the dictatorships that make up its majority. I know, I know, cue the inevitable response that the United States is just as bad. Well, our "dictators" go away after a fixed amount of time, and while some of our nuttier politicians get ideas in their heads about things like .xxx, you'll notice that they talk a lot while things stay the same.
Giving all groups equal say in the future of the internet would be a disaster for free expression. Backwards theocracies like Saudi Arabia would push restrictions on pornography and criticism of religion. China would, of course, want anything critical of its sytem blocked. The list goes on.
You don't think it would be this bad? Fine. I think it would be worse. The status quo, while imperfect, is the best way to go. My $0.02
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
As an American, I don't think that is an easy question to answer. At face value, a system that Americans control (or at least substantially influence) is more likely to protect American interests than any other system. There are any number of countries (e.g. China, Iran, Saudia Arabia, North Korea) that could desire to place controls on the internet that would be opposed to freedom and/or American interests. I can't help but recall the farce by which Libya got to run the UN Human Rights Commission.
At the same time, if ICANN were replaced by an international body strongly influenced by, for example, Europeans then we might well have more freedom and be less likely to see puritanical elements in the US getting a say over network decisions.
However, for the moment I think that the devil that we have is doing an okay job, and would hesitate to replace that with a devil that we don't know. Basically, I worry that an international body could end up being influenced by countries without a tradition of free speech in ways that could have a far more chilling effect on the internet than anything ICANN has ever done.
This argument does not stand, as everyone did create their own little wan, and they just connected it each other. The argument that the USA created the first WAN and everyone linked to it is irrelevant, except from a historical viewpoint.
;)
The USA didn't wire the whole world, fund the whole process and doesn't _maintain_ the whole thing, so this argument is moot. The idea that somehow creating/inventing it alone (which is not true, but let's not go there) would give you the right to control it, even though others are maintaining/building/improving it too, is basically a patent idea on what? Mathematics and networking protocols? Anyway, you didn't patent it, and even if you did, it would have expired long ago, and even if it wouldn't have, other countries wouldn't consider them valid, and even if they would, I would still consider them stupid if they would have existed in the first place.
Weird, I know that sharing seems to be some kind of leftist hippy idea, but that is the only thing bringing our civilisation forward: sharing of information (especially the beneficital ones, like science). You don't get to "create" mathematics. It existed before, you merely discovered it.
Your (and those who tout the 'we created it, we own it' argument) biggest problem is misdirected patriotism. Be proud of your country in different ways. Similarly this is also the problem with your foreign policy: unilaterialism. I don't have to enlist the problems and disaster that policy lead to in regards your country.
Seriously, put this argument to death. I'm sick and tired to hear it every time this issue comes up.
Or maybe you should just stop infringing the british-created legal system.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.
As a European, I feel more confident in the future of the Internet if DNS remains into American control than if it were to be placed into the hands of a UN-like international body.
Would you also feel more confident if the UN's ITU, which is the world's oldest international organisation, which runs the worldwide phone system, were dismantled in favour of a USA-run phone system? After all, the USA are the ones with phonnes that can't dial emergency numbers reliably, that charge for incoming calls and text messages, that have monopolies caused by deregulation and state-sponsored corporations. Surely you want the whole world to have that level of service?
Telecoms is one thing that the UN does very well and the USA does very badly. Your confidence is misplaced.