Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Government Retains ICANN Oversight

narramissic writes "ITworld reports that the U.S. Commerce Department will retain ICANN oversight for three more years, although there will be a review in 18 months of ICANN's progress toward becoming a more stable, transparent and accountable organization. The decision comes despite international pressure advocating for the U.S. government to bow out and make ICANN a totally autonomous entity."

87 comments

  1. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...welcome our old insect overlords...

  2. does not compute by macadamia_harold · · Score: 0, Troll

    "ITworld reports that the U.S. Commerce Department will retain ICANN oversight for three more years, although there will be a review in 18 months of ICANN's progress toward becoming a more stable, transparent and accountable organization.

    I'm sorry, but when has the US Government *ever* had a hand in something that turned into a stable, transparent and accountable organization?

    1. Re:does not compute by joshetc · · Score: 1

      Nothing ever has. You cannot be completely invisible and fully accountable. You missed a word though, more. They are looking for a greater sense of stability, transparency, and accountability. Completely different than absolutes.

    2. Re:does not compute by 955301 · · Score: 1

      The Internal Revenue Service. That organization seems to be very good at what they do.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    3. Re:does not compute by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

      The U.S. Postal Service does a pretty darn competitive job despite congressional oversight.

    4. Re:does not compute by diersing · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And who mentioned anything about invisible? or it being an absolute? I think you're seeing words that aren't there.

      I believe accountability leads to transparency and vice-versa. The word transparency in this case doesn't mean invisible, it means the full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information. Which can be accomplished, although not always easily.

    5. Re:does not compute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm sorry, but when has the US Government *ever* had a hand in something that turned into a stable, transparent and accountable organization?

      NIST, the Postal Service, etc, etc. There are many examples, but your irrational US hatred blinds you to this.

    6. Re:does not compute by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Informative
      The U.S. Postal Service does a pretty darn competitive job despite congressional oversight.


      Of course, the USPS became an independent entity that receives 0 taxpayer dollars, too...
    7. Re:does not compute by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This place has really gone to hell as UIDs approached one million.

      Are you stupid, or being deliberately obtuse? Either one is annoying.

      In case you're just an idiot, "fully transparent" refers to the skin of the organization, so you can look in, and see it working. It doesn't mean that the whole thing is invisible and even if it did, that would still be useful - you could see what it ate.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:does not compute by diersing · · Score: 1
      And you think its the goal of a transparent organization to be invisible? Can you elaborate on this theory please.

      Transparency has many definitions, please review and note differences between computing, business, material, etc.

    9. Re:does not compute by edwardpickman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually they are retaining oversight while ICANN works to improve it's stability, transparency and accountability. It doesn't say the US government is trying to turn ICANN into that. Simply cutting it loose before it's ready will cause chaos. The US government has transitioned other entities to outside control. I'm the first one to say the US government is a screwed up mess but this is probably the responsible way of handling the transition. They aren't going back on the transition they are adjusting the timeline to give time to make sure that ICANN doesn't fall into chaos.

    10. Re:does not compute by Stonent1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Replace "US Government" with "Any Government"

    11. Re:does not compute by krell · · Score: 1

      The postal service is "stable and accountable"?

      I'll grant you the "stable". You don't hear of snails usually falling over. But it is hard to call them "accountable" with the increased prices matched by decreased service, and the high level of lost mail.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    12. Re:does not compute by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry, but when has the US Government *ever* had a hand in something that turned into a stable, transparent and accountable organization?

      When compared to the alternative by anyone other than starry-eyed international idealists, the US Government starts to look pretty damn good.

      The US Government's control has resulted in the internet being a near-perfect bastion of free speech. With all the "Hate speech" and "Don't criticize the Government" laws you see in many other countries around the world, do you think giving them a hand in the matter would really improve things?

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    13. Re:does not compute by HuckleCom · · Score: 0

      I'm suprised this parent thread post was modded as "Insightful".

    14. Re:does not compute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Post WW2 Germany
      Post WW2 Japan

      Need any more?

    15. Re:does not compute by Ana10g · · Score: 1

      Umm.... Amtrak? *COUGH*, *COUGH*

      I'll be here all week! Thank you!

      --
      just an analog boy living in a digital age.
    16. Re:does not compute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got a better way of sending a dead tree letter to anywhere in the U.S. for 39 cents? Let's see UPS or FedEx try that one on for size...

    17. Re:does not compute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany was and Japan close to being democratic before and restored themselves despite US invasions after the defeat of the temporary militarist groups that assumed power.

    18. Re:does not compute by AlHunt · · Score: 0, Redundant

      >I'm sorry, but when has the US Government *ever* had a hand in something that turned into a >stable, transparent and accountable organization?

      Mod that post up to 5+

      Al

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    19. Re:does not compute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well there is the UN..... /scarcasam

    20. Re:does not compute by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the words are just invisible.

      --
      Fnord.
    21. Re:does not compute by leoxx · · Score: 1

      Replace "any government" with "any large enough group of human beings". If you've ever worked for a large company, then you know what I'm talking about.

  3. Fear Change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I am missing the point, but.... what is so horrible wrong with the way it has been handled or their future plans that a change is necessary?

    1. Re:Fear Change? by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

      Maybe nothing at all but then maybe someone else (a mix of nations) could do even better.

    2. Re:Fear Change? by palutke · · Score: 1

      When has 'a mix of nations' ever run anything well?

      --
      'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
    3. Re:Fear Change? by jordroth · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but how long will it be before some nations petition the UN to "display" a Page Blocked message due to obscene content?

    4. Re:Fear Change? by Guuge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then we'd veto. Besides, if fundamentalist christians in the US have been unable to censor the internet (despite having allies at the highest levels of the government) then I don't think it's going to happen in the UN.

    5. Re:Fear Change? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Indeed - if you want the internet to be left well alone then the UN is the *ideal* place to put oversight, because any change will take so long to get out of committee we'll all be grandparents by then.

      At the moment ICANN is basically pulling random domains out of its ass (.museum? .travel? WTF do we need industry specific TLDs for? Just how many frikkin' museums *are* there that want their own domain anyway?) just in an attempt to make money. The *only* domains that should be created are the top level country TLDs and let the countries themselves handle everything below that (as they do at the moment).

    6. Re:Fear Change? by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

      What about one country controlling a World-wide resource?

        It's better to work together than to fight. Being xenophobic never fixed any problem I know of.

  4. One Good thing by in2mind · · Score: 1
    The Commerce Department remains committed toward eventually giving ICANN full autonomy, it said.
    1. Re:One Good thing by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't get how that's a good thing. How would eliminating oversight make ICANN into a more stable and accountable organization?

      ICANN is a private entity that makes decisions that affect the Internet at large with almost no public oversight as it is. They are already proposing to add a bunch more ridiculous TLDs to fund their enormous proposed budget increases. It has become clear that new TLDs are not intended to improve the Internet, but are rather ICANN's license to print money. How would things be better if they no longer had anyone to answer to for that sort of garbage?

      Sure, the US government is not great at oversight with regard to technical matters, but it's a lot better than no oversight at all. Given the hatred of the UN on this site, I'm sure no one would ever want ICANN to be brought under their influence, but some sort of international governing body would be a good thing. At this point, the UN is the closes thing we have to something like that.

      Bringing ICANN under international control and creating more opportunity for the public at large to influence their decision making would be a step in the right direction. Ending what little oversight the organization currently has with nothing to replace it is a step in the wrong direction.

    2. Re:One Good thing by in2mind · · Score: 1
      but some sort of international governing body would be a good thing. At this point, the UN is the closes thing we have to something like that.

      In that case you need'nt worry.We know which country has the max influence on UN!

  5. Weird Weird! by in2mind · · Score: 1
    On the other hand, others believe that continued U.S. government oversight of ICANN is necessary because ICANN hasn't proven it can handle the entire task of DNS management alone and that if the U.S. government withdraws, the Internet's security and stability could be compromised.

    Duh!

  6. IRS?? by nuggz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You've got to be kidding.

    The only reason they haven't totally failed is they are a legal monopoly.

    Their customer service and satisfaction is horrible. Many people can't even figure out how to file their own taxes.

    They can't even effectively get the money they're owed, they are outsourcing that to private collection agents.

    1. Re:IRS?? by Tatsh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The IRS is illegal! There is NO LAW REQUIRING YOU TO PAY TAXES! Over 66 million people don't file taxes every year (some because they can't figure out how). The IRS CANNOT get EVERYONE!

  7. as the saying goes.. by Aeron65432 · · Score: 0

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

  8. I wonder though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I realize I'm going against "common wisdom" here on Slashdot, but is it really so bad that the U.S. retains control of ICANN?

    I mean, what's the alternative? Putting it under control of the UN, like WIPO?

    Would that really be better or would it just give people warm, fuzzy feelings?

    1. Re:I wonder though... by hyperstation · · Score: 0, Redundant

      you mean common ignorance...the US built it, and should absolutely have authority over it.

    2. Re:I wonder though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fool. Technology derives from scientific advancement and no single nation can claim sole responsibility for scientific advancement. The roles are complex, but it is foolish to think that the Internet would be anything if it was not ubiquitous and it will not stay that way if the US retains any more influence on it than other nations.

    3. Re:I wonder though... by doshell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least it wouldn't give people the feeling that the USA likes to stick their nose in all matters and have control of everything under the sun...

      We seem to agree, here on Slashdot, that the relative "anarchy" inherent to the way the internet works is a good thing, and that government control over it should be kept to a minimum. Why, then, do some people insist that the American government keep control over something as important to the internet as the ICANN? It would be the same as giving them the power to regulate which protocols and data formats you are allowed to use over the internet (currently, apart from the fact that you must encapsulate your packets into IP, they can contain pretty much anything you'd like). That kind of control would go against the spirit of the internet. In my opinion, control of the ICANN by a government (be it the American one or any other) is no different.

      --
      Score: i, Imaginary
    4. Re:I wonder though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it wouldn't give people the feeling that the USA likes to stick their nose in all matters and have control of everything under the sun...

      So... one vote for warm and fuzzy.

      We seem to agree, here on Slashdot, that the relative "anarchy" inherent to the way the internet works is a good thing, and that government control over it should be kept to a minimum.

      While I agree that government control should be kept to a minimum, but is making it an "autonomous entity" really the answer? I mean, it's not really going to be autonomous. It's going be put under the aspices of the UN, so that's really substituting one almost unaccountable bureaucracy for a completely unaccountable bureaucracy.

      I used WIPO as an example. WIPO is an agency of the UN, but practically speaking, are they accountable to anyone but themselves? Would ICANN fare any better? Even at best, is it going to be better than it is now or just different?

  9. You want an ICANN Nation? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 5, Informative

    The decision comes despite international pressure advocating for the U.S. government to bow out and make ICANN a totally autonomous entity.

    A totally autonomous entity? You want to make ICANN it's own individual nation? The Internet should be run by a stateless corporation who is completely outside the authority of any government at all? That's straight out of a cyberpunk novel ;) Welcome to the Treehouse.

    I thought the argument was to place ICANN under the authority of the UN, which is a completely different idea then making "ICANN a totally autonomous entity".

    This is the meat of the argument, right? Should ICANN be under US authority or should it be under UN authority?

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    1. Re:You want an ICANN Nation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the UN invents it's own system of tubes then they can have authority over it, right? Nobody's really giving the US any props for eventually giving up their authority here, when they clearly have no obligation to. So, kudos US for trying to do the right thing in this case.

    2. Re:You want an ICANN Nation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't even care about who created the tubes... the UN is powerless to enforce it's own resolutions and is even more rife with corruption and lack of accountability than the US government. That alone disqualifies the UN.

    3. Re:You want an ICANN Nation? by wfberg · · Score: 2, Insightful


      I thought the argument was to place ICANN under the authority of the UN, which is a completely different idea then making "ICANN a totally autonomous entity".

      This is the meat of the argument, right? Should ICANN be under US authority or should it be under UN authority?


      And of course, at this point, the thread turns to UN bashing, without stopping to think that, hey, the UN actually already runs a global adressing system - or rather, the international telecommunications union does. And it plods along just fine, with all those different countries assigning their own numbers, and things just keeping on working..

      What most people fail to realise is that what ICANN actually does (that is of any consequence) is very, very little. They don't run any nameservers, they just say "those ones are the ones we recommend you use" and tell the people running them "these are our policies". At any point in time people can say "you know what, fuck you ICANN", and NOTHING would change. ICANN is there because people feel a need for there to be an "authority". In reality the show is run by the (cc)TLD registries, verisign, ISC, RIPE, etc.

      In fact, the EU has legislation that reserves the right to EU governments subvert ICANN; it would legally obligate ISPs to point to government-approved nameservers rather than ICANN's. (Of course you could still use your own). This is the same legal mechanism through which telephonenumber registries are appointed, actually. This is a recourse the US doesn't even impose on their citizens, even though they contract out to ICANN.

      That hasn't happened because ICANN has failed to really fuck up that much.

      The day ICANN is deposed will be much like a bloodless coup in Thailand. ICANN folks will show up at work some day to find everyone's just kind of ignoring them.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    4. Re:You want an ICANN Nation? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      How can the UN (which is made up of governments) be less accountable than the governments its made up of?

      It's a collection of government representatives, designed to hammer out global treaties and generally avoid another world war.

      The most powerful government in the UN *by far* is the US - so if it's corrupt you know exactly where to look.

      (I saw a programme the other day in which they said the reason the US hates the UN so much is because it's run by fundies who are convinced that the UN is the antichrist & is about to force everyone to put barcodes on their head or something. Reading slashdot I can almost believe it...)

    5. Re:You want an ICANN Nation? by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      The cyberpunk authors were ahead of their time in many ways... they understood that in the era of global telecommunications, trans-national corporations, and very fast travel (anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours), that governments how we understand them would be outdated.

      The U.N. is simply a nationalist concept that is extended to the world. We have taken the model of social organization that was really a product of 19th century imperialism, and are constantly trying to re-adopt it to the modern world, when in fact we probably need new institutions that are not "governments" as we understand them.

      The trouble is, there is a lot of emotional baggage around nationalism (or super-nationalism, which is what the U.N. is). People have an emotional attachment to their nation-state, and sometimes they expand that feeling of nationalism to a world government. The attachment to government and nationality is a lot like attachment to religion. It seems disturbing or unthinkable to abandon the idea of government, but there isn't nessiciarily anything crazy about it.

      While it is true, the debate has been between ICANN being under UN authority or US authority... there is no reason why we shouldn't consider making ICANN totally autonomous. It sounds totally sensible to me. Why can't the Internet be a stateless corporation outside the authority of any government? What is so reassuring and reasonable about governments? Given the history of mass-murder, genocide, warfare, oppression, and extreme incompetence on behalf of governments, why is having an institution that isn't linked to the police/military power structure of a geographic area so unthinkable? What is so frightening or outlandish about it?

  10. International pressure? by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The NY Times reports that John Derringer of 5th Ave. will retain his pocket change. The decision comes despite numerous homeless people asking him for money."

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1. Re:International pressure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Al Jazeera reports that Iran will retain control of its people. The decision comes despite international calls for people to be treated as autonomous entities."

    2. Re:International pressure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The NY Times reports that John Derringer of 5th Ave. will retain his pocket change. The decision comes despite numerous homeless people asking him for money."

      Poor dude, if I was him I'd start making my own pocket change sharing it with my own friends, and cut the spoilt yuppie out of the equation altogether. See how smart he is then.
    3. Re:International pressure? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  11. Autonomous ICANN is a disaster by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An autonomous ICANN is even more dangerous than what we have today. We can easily predict that the autonomous ICANN would basically do whatever the registies want: granting them perpetual, unregulated monopolies with the ability to raise prices and otherwise screw customers at will. Internet users would have no say at all.

    1. Re:Autonomous ICANN is a disaster by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Agreed. The U.S. invented the Internet and should maintian the control over it.

      --

      Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    2. Re:Autonomous ICANN is a disaster by asuffield · · Score: 1
      We can easily predict that the autonomous ICANN would basically do whatever the registies want: granting them perpetual, unregulated monopolies with the ability to raise prices and otherwise screw customers at will. Internet users would have no say at all.


      In other words, basically the same as today.
    3. Re:Autonomous ICANN is a disaster by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the US government has really neglected to use its authority over ICANN (except in the "OMG we can't say XXX" case), but at least in theory there is some oversight.

    4. Re:Autonomous ICANN is a disaster by doshell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *sigh* There we go again.

      You don't own the internet! Some of the core protocols of the internet were invented in America. Others weren't! E.g. the World Wide Web was invented by an english man. Can you picture the internet without the world wide web? Should Tim Berners-Lee and the British government have control over every website in existence? Does that look right to you, in the same way you think everything that runs on IP, TCP, DNS, etc. is "owned" by the USA?

      Meanwhile, the fact that you invented some protocols doesn't grant you rights over a huge physical network built thanks to the effort (and investments!) of many people, companies and governments, only a fraction of which sit in the USA. Show me proof that you manufactured and installed every modem, network card, router, switch, underwater cable, ethernet cable, etc. in the whole wide world, and that the operators of every single network connected to the internet are American, and only then will I agree the internet is yours.

      Otherwise, just shut up already, because what you're doing is just spreading false information. Repeat after me: the only part of the internet that is American is the one lying in American soil. Nothing else is technically, legally nor ethically yours.

      --
      Score: i, Imaginary
    5. Re:Autonomous ICANN is a disaster by doshell · · Score: 1

      Right, because we all know the American government has never favoured corporations in detriment of the will of the people...

      I for one don't think it would be that bad. Any organisation is subject to the kind of political/economical pressures you refer to. The fact that the ICANN is autonomous, controlled by the US government, controlled by the UN or controlled by anyone else will not change that. It just determines who is the most capable of exerting that pressure.

      In fact you could argue that an ICANN under American control will simply have a tendency to favour American companies. Aren't many, if not all of the top-level registrars (excluding national TLDs) American? That certainly says something about the way the ICANN is currently run.

      --
      Score: i, Imaginary
  12. ICANN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do anything

  13. Good. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. by dfenstrate · · Score: 0

    For all of ICANN's imperfections, the internet remains a largely free and unrestricted place.

    It would be a shame to turn over control of it to an organization (UN) even more beaurocratic, bloated and useless than the US Government, as they would likely regulate the internet into the ground.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  14. Re:U.S. Government Retains ICANN Oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it's not like they built it or anything ;)

  15. no way!! by stewwy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There is no way the US will EVER give up control .... especially in the present power crazed and fear driven attitude
    For gods sake think of the children/terrorists/economic situation (delete as appropriate)we can't let an organisation comprised of non-americans have any power, they might do something we don't like

    1. Re:no way!! by CloakedMirror · · Score: 1
      There is no way the US will EVER give up control .... especially in the present power crazed and fear driven attitude For gods sake think of the children/terrorists/economic situation (delete as appropriate)we can't let an organisation comprised of non-americans have any power, they might do something we don't like
      That has to be the most absurd statement I have seen in a long time. The only domain blocking (read squashing of free speech rights) we see on the internet is in countries where the ruling regime controls access to domains. Many of those countries would love to see anyone (the UN?!?) other than the US have control of ICANN. That would give them an opportunity to impose their brand of censorship on all of us.

      I'd rather see control of the internet stay where it's less likely to be hammered into the NOAS (Network of Only Approved Speech).
      --
      Evolutionary thinking will move you down the road, revolutionary thinking will put you on a new road!
    2. Re:no way!! by stewwy · · Score: 1

      where in my comment did I mention free speech? or censorship? You seem to have missed the point entirely which was, and I repeat it an a simpler form for those who don't get it.

      Very rarely, if at all, will anyone in authority give up that power without a fight.

      I actually think the UN would do a very good and impartial job (no doubt I'll get flamed by the irrational UN haters). I no longer trust the US administration to be on the side of free speech and fairness ( and yes it is fairer and supports free speech better than SOME countries, but I think it comes someway down the league nowadays)

      The UN could not impose censorship as its membership is too varied and would deadlock as to what was censorship (or in Ameri-speak Net-neutrality, your version of NOAS lol ).

      The reason most countries want the US administration to relinquish control of ICANN is they don't trust it, often with good reason.

      Please note I am talking about the administration and not 'americans' personaly

    3. Re:no way!! by canuck57 · · Score: 1
      There is no way the US will EVER give up control ....

      How much control the US government has through ICANN't is quite literally overstated. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root

      Anyone can set up a root server, intercept the DNS, if not resolved then forward it to exist ICANN supported root. In fact, China actively does this see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4767972.stm

      China is doing it because ICANN is unenforceable they choose to be different and are serious. If Vixie and others don't add features and routinely show up drunk and stagnant then others will move in. If Verisign, ICANN't evil doer raises .com prices to $5000 then watch the domain collapse and others move in.

      The bottom line is it is more competitive than one might think. And what most want is stability with low domain prices. If ICANN can deliver, they will have near unanimous support. If they don't; it will loose it's lock fast. without regard to what the US government says.

    4. Re:no way!! by stewwy · · Score: 1

      A very good point and one I admit I had overlooked.

  16. ICANN's own press release plays up autonomy by daveb · · Score: 1

    ICANN are announcing it as a move to much more independance and emphasising LESS US-DOC control. Spin or PR? I dunno. the press-release is here

  17. But It Will Break by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1, Insightful
    It would be a shame to turn over control of it to an organization (UN) even more beaurocratic, bloated and useless than the US Government, as they would likely regulate the internet into the ground.
    And what is the US going to do to it? The country doesn't even abide by habeas corpus anymore. People can be dragged off in the middle of the night never to be seen again. It's becoming a theocracy and most Americans seem quite contented with this. And you want this nation to administer DNS for the entire globe? Lunacy!

    It's only a matter of time before ICANN is order to edit the root DNS servers to combat child porn, terrorism, rouge states and/or anti-american sentiment. People who deny this are fooling only themselves. ICANN will go the way of every other agency in contemporary America. To the right. The US is no longer fit to lead the free world in anything anymore. This is not a troll. It really isn't.

    There isn't a substantial amount of difference between US theocrats running DNS and Chinese autocrats running DNS. I'd rather have the UN in charge because at least then I could rely on inefficient beaucracy and discord to leave the system we know and love well enough alone.
    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:But It Will Break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build your own dns and get off my dns... er lawn.

    2. Re:But It Will Break by dfenstrate · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There isn't a substantial amount of difference between US theocrats running DNS and Chinese autocrats running DNS

      Sure there is. One is your imagination running wild, and the other is shit the chinese prove every day. The third option, the UN, is the devil you don't know (with respect to this issue), and I think we all know that canard, eh? Considering that everyone turns a blind eye to UN troops turning refugee camps into child brothels, among other things, I'd say the whole organization is suspect.

      The US is no longer fit to lead the free world in anything anymore. This is not a troll. It really isn't.

      Uh huh. Well considering no one else will step up to the plate, the rest of the world doesn't really have a whole lot of options, does it?

      And you say 'moving to the right' like it's a priori a bad thing. Try to remember that slashdot isn't a 100% leftist circle-jerk, mmmkay?

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:But It Will Break by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'd probably agree with you if I could think of a way to regulate child porn, terrorism, or any other content through the manipulation of DNS records. We are all quite adept at passing around phone numbers... presumably terrorists or child pornographers could pass around IP numbers. It's not like terrorist.com brings you to a centralized terror site or kiddie.com gets you a paid child porn site. I mean, I use opendns.com dns servers - it took all of about 30 seconds to set up. Certainly criminals are capable of the same?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:But It Will Break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only a matter of time before ICANN is order to edit the root DNS servers to combat ... rouge states...

      I hate to pick but I fear it's unavoidable... Commies aren't the issue anymore! :)

  18. Re:U.S. Government Retains ICANN Oversight by DittoBox · · Score: 2, Funny
    ICANN't believe it! Next thing you know, the US Govt. will start thinking it owns the world!

    You're new to this planet aren't you? :)

    --
    Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
  19. Who paid for it? by jordroth · · Score: 1

    Now I for one certainly would not appreciate any one or any bodies knocking on my door telling me that I am unfit to operate/maintain the network I set up in my house, paid for with my money and invested my time into simply because they and their followers wanted to operate/maintain it. They would promplty recieve a vulgar face to face message embeded with some choice obscenities and the slamming of a door followed by sounds of a deadbolt being engaged. How many slashdotters would just love to walk into some company's massive server farm and declare they are unfit to operate it and will have forfeit controll of it. I would love to walk into the googleplex and declare that they are unfit to have such a wealth of search data and have to let me "over-see" all operations from this point on.

  20. Agreement Between ICANN and US Dept of Commerce by Paul+Levins · · Score: 1

    The fact is this is a major step forward for the multi-stakeholder model of consultation that ICANN represents. It means ICANN is more autonomous. Where's the proof? Previous to this agreement there was a Memorandum of Understanding between the DOC and ICANN that was highly prescriptive. The MOU expires on 30 September 2006. The Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce has said publicly today that he wants to work to make ICANN a stable, lasting and independent institution. The major gains in this new agreement are: ICANN will no longer have its work prescribed for it. How it works and what it works on is up to ICANN and its community to devise; ICANN is not required to report every 6 months as it has been under the MOU. It will now provide an annual report that will be targeted to the whole Internet community; There is no requirement to report regularly to the DOC. The DOC will simply meet with senior ICANN staff from time to time. So, the top-line here is that this is a major step forward for ICANN to be completely autonomous. But that autonomy means ICANN has an obligation to be accountable to its community and it will be.

  21. It was way worse. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Yep, but I'm willing to bet that most Slashdotters aren't old enough to remember that the Post Office was at certain points in the not-too-distant past, a real mess.

    They've gotten better and better the further they've gotten out from under the boot of Congress. I think they'd maybe almost survive in the open market today.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  22. Amtrak by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    The problem with Amtrak is that the U.S. government insists on running a railroad, when what they ought to be doing is just maintaining the right-of-ways.

    Congress also spends billions of dollars on the Interstate Highways, yet they don't monopolize over-the-road trucking; truckers use the infrastructure and theoretically pay taxes to do so (levied on diesel fuel). We all know that they don't come close to paying for the damage they do to the infrastructure...but that's a different discussion.

    If Congress tried to create Amtruck, I can guarantee you that it would be as much of a gigantic cockup as Amtrak is -- probably worse.

    The best thing they could do now would be to take over the rail infrastructure and manage it just like the interstate highways are managed, and then let the railroads use them in the same way that truckers use the roads. The same arguments that are used for subsidization of the Interstates would apply in equal or greater strength to railroads -- particularly considering the price of energy and the inherent efficiency of rail for moving heavy loads around. Encouraging the use of the rail network by paying for its maintenance would have both economic and environmental benefits.

    The problem with Amtrak is that it's micromanaged, and thus it's doomed almost from the beginning not to failure, but mediocrity.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Amtrak by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Congress also spends billions of dollars on the Interstate Highways, yet they don't monopolize over-the-road trucking; truckers use the infrastructure and theoretically pay taxes to do so (levied on diesel fuel). We all know that they don't come close to paying for the damage they do to the infrastructure...but that's a different discussion.

      One could argue that the highways repay themselves in far more ways than just that of the levy on fuels used to cross them. Transport = business = tax.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    2. Re:Amtrak by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Like I said, that's a wholly different discussion from what I was trying to get at in my post; you're correct that infrastructure investments often pay dividends that are not easily quantifiable or taxable -- by lowering the cost of transportation you increase the amount and variety of goods that can be sold; the increase in economic activity benefits virtually everyone. This isn't a new concept, and it's been the motivation for public works projects for generations (I first read about it being used to justify canal projects in the 18th century but I doubt it originated there).

      The same logic that you use to justify public funding of the Interstates, though (and canals, and the Federal Air Traffic Control System, or any other piece of big infrastructure) could also be used to justify some amount of public funding for the railroad right-of-ways. Particularly since railroads are a more efficient way to move bulky or heavy cargo, it would make sense to encourage their use -- they have less negative externalities associated with them than over-the-road trucks do, per cargo-ton-mile carried. Rather than what amounts to a subsidy for the use of the Interstates versus the railroads (because truckers get their infrastructure virtually for free, while the railroads have to pay for their own land and maintenance), I would see more economic justification for a subsidy on railroad cargo, if we can't just have a flat playing field.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  23. Re:U.S. Government Retains ICANN Oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US built the world in seven days, as any graduate of the fine schools in Kansas will tell you.

  24. who do you want to control ICANN? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    This is the meat of the argument, right? Should ICANN be under US authority or should it be under UN authority?

    Of the two, I'd rather see it under US control. With the exception of the .xxx domain the US hasn't done much to control how or where the internet goes, that I know of. If the UN gets control though Cuba, North Korea, and others will try to grab control of the whole thing. I'd rather see it stay pretty much open and not closed.

    Falcon
  25. SYSTEM of tubes versus SERIES of tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahem. You are confusing the SYSTEM of tubes, that is, the IETF RFC protocols that were developed by international participants, with the SERIES of tubes that carry the packets around at present. Hosting the process by which the SYSTEM of tubes (how they interconnect, how wide they are, etc.) as defined ought to give you no particular rights over the SERIES of tubes actually installed by all sorts of folks all over the world.

    The British do not get to tell us how to use English because they invented it. Nor do the Chinese get to tell us how to use gunpowder. Remember that an army, too, relies on a series of tubes (rifle barrels, cannon, flamethrowers, etc.). Those who design them do not get to later demand to control at what it is that they are pointed.