ICANN's Contract Renewed

mrogers writes "The International Herald Tribune is reporting that ICANN's contract has been renewed for the next five years. This means the non-profit corporation, which is responsible for allocating IP addresses and administering the top level of the Domain Name System, will not become independent from the U.S. Department of Commerce until at least 2011. The contract is also available as a PDF."

Comments

Lovely!

[cashman73]

These are the brilliant geniuses that brought us the completely useless domains of .aero, .museum, and .coop, not to mention the spam-haven of .biz! I wonder what sort of cr*p they can bring out in the next five years? ;-)

Big deal..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't quite see why everyone outside the USA (maybe its just the EU) is freaking out over this. ICANN seems to be doing good job of running the show so far. Why change it over to another organization where the possiblity for more political drama to occur?

If it ain't broke, no need to mess with it, right?

Re:More ICANN

[4solarisinfo]

I do not know if they should be renewing it for 5 years, though, as that is an eternity in Internet time.

Actually, I think if it's going to be renewed, it SHOULD be an 'eternity in Internet time'. Standards change often enough, and ICANN is one of the few stabilizing factors out there. It's one thing to keep pushing the technology envelope, but working on large systems with a long lead time You really learn to appreciate that if nothing stays the same, you can never finish.

Who would be able to do it?

[slapyslapslap]

Is there anyone who can step in right now and take over? It's kind of like wondering why Halliburton got all the contracts in Iraq. Who else?

While we're on the subject...

[Riding Spinners]

Why are we suddenly supporting ICANN? Because it's an opportunity to attack the U.S.? Come on – wasn't this the same organization that held meetings on critical issues in Ghana so that critics wouldn't come?

Gee, let's hold an important meeting on how much we'll let the public participate in ICANN in a country with less than impressive internal stability so the critics will be scared away! BRILLIANT!

Sorry, given the choice of ICANN control of root servers and U.S. control of root servers... I'll stick with the current well functioning system. One of the two is subject to political pressure from somebody.

You're confusing things, here.

[ScentCone]

In both the areas of military/support contracting and administering network address-space issues, it's not a question of whether or not there's someone else with equal experience, structure, stability, and readiness to step up. Just as much of the audience here would rather see some services go unprovided than have them provided by The Man (a large company that specializes in such things), some other spots around the world just can't stand that an operation friendly (read: "not hostile") to western/US interests is in charge of TLDs and address ranges.

It's the same reason that some extremists would rather have totally militarized, radicalized, corrupt "social services" management in southern Lebanon courtesy of Iran via their Hezbollah proxies than embrace western investment in some actually productive, forward-looking western-style democracy and economic productivity that would more quickly raise the standard of living. It simply doesn't feel as good to have someone you resent doing something useful that you're not ready/willing to do yourself. It's the same reason teenagers go through the "I hate my parents" phase... they have a hard time reconciling their dependence, the growing awareness that they don't know how to do everything, and the fact that doing it all yourself is actually very hard, expensive work. So, it's easier just to bitch about it, and let it keep working. Just like the teenagers that "hate" their parents are still happy to sit at the table and wait for Mom to scramble some eggs for them in the morning. Resentment is cheap and easy, and hey, Mom's making eggs (and address space) anyway, right?

Silly Premise

[Tiger4]

If ICANN wanted to be independent, they would be. They have a CONTRACT with the US government. They aren't slaves or government employees (or any mix in between!). ICANN could go its own separate way tomorrow if it chose to, subject to whatever termination clause the contract has. They don't do it because they don't want to.

And that is a good thing, because if ICANN did become independent, the US would be free to come up with something to replace it. National entitites are not forced to comply with ICANN. They do it for convienience and compatibility. And seeing as the US is a huge part of the IP traffic in the world, I don't think anyone wants it going off on its own. We definitely do not want W getting any more crazy ideas about "leadership" and "freedom".

Re:Silly Premise

[ScentCone]

We definitely do not want W getting any more crazy ideas about "leadership" and "freedom".

You were sounding so rational there, right up to that point. The administration has been one of the most consistent voices speaking out specifically to maintain this arrangement. Exactly in the interests of leadership and freedom. Do you really want the committee-chairman-of-the-week in some back corner of the UN having influence over this vital area? Me neither. Neither does the current administration, which is why they've thrown their weight behind the current arrangement for a long time now.

I know a lot of people just have to reflexively toss in a Bush jab at every turn ("Man, traffic was slow today because of that road work on the freeway. And then when I got to work, I stubbed my toe on my desk chair, as if Bush doesn't have better things to do!"), but these non-sequitors (or worse, contrary-to-the-actual-facts notions) don't help you discredit the administration, they make your complaints seem less valid and more shrill. At least take your shots in the right direction - it's more effective.

Re:Silly Premise

[Tiger4]

The complaint, among others, is that ICANN has been the tool of the US government for too long. That somehow it would be better if it were less US-centric. That may or may not be true. But that same alternative includes in it the risk that the US would just create another ICANN to do the work of the previous one. And any new agency would certainly be more US centric than the last one.

Especially any new agency formed by the Bush administration, which is responsible for me stubbing my toe this morning.

Does that explain it a little better?