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."

21 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Ah the US Government by bombboyer · · Score: 3, Funny

    "the email postal address is..." Must be going to Ted Stevens' office.

    1. Re:Ah the US Government by lightyear4 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Aww, give the guy a break - I know when I get an internet delivered to my inbox, it takes a long time to download too.

  2. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

    2. Re:Question to America... by FuturePastNow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:Question to America... by dragons_flight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Question to America... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    5. Re:Question to America... by rastos1 · · Score: 3, Funny
      > 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.

      So I don't understand why you prefer "American control" then.

    6. Re:Question to America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. 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
  3. Uhh what are we going to do ..... by tecker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. 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 gkhan1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has to be one of the wierdest comments I've ever seen on /. I don't understand, why would we want that? So that people can be restricted to only surf in their own countries? Or are you saying that being international is "stupid", that it's "silly" not to automatically associate a company with a specific nation?

      Let's take a concrete example: wikipedia. It's hosted by a US foundation and most of the servers reside in Florida. This would put it squarely in the .us category, right? But what about the foreign language wikipedias? I doubt there is less than 20 people in the entire US who would be interested in the Norwegian wikipedia. So by what crazy logic should the people of norway be forced to access a site completly in norwegian, for norwegians, by norwegians (btw, is that how you spell norwegian?) be forced to access no.wikipedia.us? It's insane! It would also be extremely difficult for the wikimedia foundation to purchuse all the top level domains it would need (there are what, 180 different language wikipedias?) not only because of the administrative pains but also because it would cost way, way more than wikimedia could ever pay. Remember, they're a non-profit, the wikipedia servers are hanging on by a thread as it is! Wikipedia also has extra servers in other countries (I believe they're located in Amsterdam and Hong Kong, but I'm probaly wrong). Should pages going through them have their respective nations top level domains?

      I can't believe you got modded to 4.

  5. Replace it with WECANN... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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....
    1. Re:Replace it with WECANN... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ICANN has its problem -- some of them pretty awful, but does anyone here honestly believe that the US government is just trying to make the Internet a better place for all the rest of us? Does anyone honestly believe the current US government would replace ICANN with something more open, democratic, and more reactive to the needs of most Internet users and our interests? Does anyone think the rest of the world is likely to go along with whatever scheme for ICANN's replacement is dreamed up by the incompetent dolts who presently run the United States?

      I think replacing ICANN is a non-starter simply on the basis of the international community's distrust of this government, let alone whatever harebrained scheme they US has come up with.

      The practical effect, if the US goes forward with something idiotic (which seems entirely possible), is that the rest of the world just says "f*ck you," creates an alternative, and the Internet in general keeps working with the US having about 1/10 the influence on the international body than it has on ICANN. This might be a bit annoying for a while, but then everyone (except a few official US government networks) will regard the international body as having more legitimacy, and the US alternative will die a slow unmourned death.

      So maybe it's not such a bad idea afterall...

    2. 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...)
  6. This is ./ by rritterson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)
  7. The status quo by Shohat · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 .

  8. No by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. stop saying "it's our internet"!!! by abigsmurf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!