Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Calls For Public Meeting on ICANN Replacement

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the talking-the-net-with-uncle-sam dept.

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."

14 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Question to America... by nbannerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:Question to America... by nbannerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft is a company, the internet is not. You are not really comparing like-for-like I'm afraid; there is a fundamental difference between the two. The internet is essentially a service these days, and thus warrants a different level of control, especially considering how deeply it has entered areas of society.

    2. Re:Question to America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Perhaps the most democratic way to do it would be by basing votes on who has the most money invested in the Internet or money affected by the Internet. These groups would have the most to lose if someone fscked it up. A quick guess would have the US, EU, Japan, and China to have the vast majority of the votes (probably in about that order). It's certainly not a perfect system (it doesn't prevent rich countries from be biased against the poorer countries), but it certainly beats having a country like Cuba having the same say as a country with a $12 trillion economy. The tyrannical Chinese government would have a large number of votes, but it would be nowhere near enough to override the rest of the major world powers. In addition, to keep the status quo (if necessary), the major powers could also be given veto power.

    3. Re:Question to America... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now, the US ain't exactly the advocate of freedom on the net anymore either...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Question to America... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And what would you think about some kind of meritocracy, like the Nobel comitee ? Take the National Science Foundation (still american, I know, but presumably somehow independant from government inference) and make them nominate recognized computer scientists at the head of ICANN. Not quite the ideal system, but this one could work...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:Question to America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.

      The UN has a proven track record of not fucking up telecommunications as evidenced by the ITU. The USA has a proven track record of fucking up telecommunications as evidenced by your politicians basically handing money over to telecom companies and deregulating them so they could build local monopolies to gouge the consumer.

      What is nutty about allowing .xxx? So far, the only complaints I have heard are against requiring .xxx, which is a total straw-man argument that has no bearing on allowing .xxx as a TLD. The USA are blocking allowing .xxx, which is entirely unreasonable and another example of interference, not an example of non-interference as you claim.

    6. Re:Question to America... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Interesting
      (...), and offering your share of criticisms, without offering anything resembling a solution.
      Why would I offered a solution in my grandparent post? I was debunking a misconception. It is a complete argument on its own.

      But since...
      So, please finish the rest of your comment and enlighten us, what is your solution?
      ...you're asking for my opinion, I'll elaborate on it a bit.

      A new agency/organization in charge of the DNS system would have to satisfy the following in my opinion:
      • Be a fair representation, relative to the number of the people using the Internet. That rules out the influence of dictatorships totally. There is more than enough weight from Europe, US and India to counter any negative effect.
      • Be technically-savvy. It shouldn't be the business comittee ICANN is, rather it should be managing the root DNS servers. That rules out Verisign profiteering, because they wouldn't be let to sell domains at $7 compared to $0.03 in their expenses. This is kind of similar to the idea you cited in your post, about appointing people of technical merit to lead the organization. I find that a good solution.
      • Their primary goal should be the current operation, future improving and even research for a better DNS system.
      Now we only have to figure out where to find such organization.

      Personally, I don't think the fears from the UN are justified. The UN already has a lot of worldwide organizations, doing excellent work (do I need to cite ITU, WHO, UNICEF, etc?). If the organization is set up like I've described above, then it is basically independent from any other influence described. The organization would only belong in title to the UN and financially. It would be really distant from the General Assembly of the UN, which is where the dictators lurk. Noone could influence the organization once its set up from the General Assembly, as the USA has the veto power to block any resolutions coming from there.

      It is certainly the lesser of two evils and I don't think it would be too far fetched to say that most likely it would even be a positive approach.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  2. Disturbing... by ZombieEngineer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Disturbing... by houghi · · Score: 1, Interesting
      eg: stay in your own domain


      I agree completely. It should however go both ways. Dump all the .com, .net, .org, .bizz stuff and just use country codes. ONLY country codes.
      Yeah, that means dumping .eu as well.

      It does not mean that people are forced to use their own country code. Some countries will hapily sell it (.to, .tv. ...) to homever wants it.

      What if you are an international organisation? Well, if you are, most likley you will have some international representation as well. If you so desire you can then register in each country.
      Or just in your home country. Whatever you desire. If you are realy internatonal, you will most likely be able to pay the fee in each country, otherwise you have bigger problems.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  3. Re:email postal address? by dragons_flight · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some years back the USPS was actually considering linking every snail mail address to an email address, so we could really have had email postal addresses. They seem to have let the idea die a quiet death however.

  4. Re:Replace it with WECANN... by BrynM · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Every nation should have representation based on the number of servers hosted in it's soil, amount of bandwidth generated, etc.

    If they did it by registered domain names (IPs), Tuvalu could finally pass Sierra Leone, Grenada, Liberia, Somalia and French Guiana as a major world power!

    (as a side note, I came across this cool map hunting the links)
    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  5. How about just getting the governments out? by sane? · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Why not just accept that any government, or pseudo government organisation, will make a screw up of anything to do with something like the Internet. To much ego, to little clue.

    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?

  6. You Betcha by karl.auerbach · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does ICANN need to be replaced or reformed into something almost entirely new? You Betcha!

    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 .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.

    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 .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.)

    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.

  7. Re:Ah the US Government by eraser.cpp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The proposed amendment would have allowed telcos to limit traffic by type but not by destination. If Verizon wanted to block Vonage's VoIP traffic for their customers, they would need to block their own (and all other VoIP traffic) too. Same goes for different packet queueing. The address Senator Stevens made was wrong in ways not limited to jargon. Other readers and myself touched on some of them in comments made under that news story.