Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Wants Immunity
rprins writes "In what is perhaps a reaction to recent Homeland Security demands, a strategic report by ICANN suggests that it should take on the model of a private international organization (PDF). That would make ICANN immune from US law and regulations. However, it's unlikely that the Bush administration would grant ICANN these privileges. So the organization might opt to relocate to Switzerland where such privileges are easier to attain."
The US has long lost its role as mediator of the web.
So the organization might opt to relocate to Switzerland where such privileges are easier to attain.
Yeah, I can see the US gov't just sitting by quietly while that happened.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
And I guess we're not to ask "why", right ? Whom will get custudy over ICANN after this operation ? Are we to believe that the ICANN board, we all know how reliable they are, will make the right choices for all of us ? Will it be the UN ? I trust them even less to make the right choice. I like where the internet has gotten under US law. Why would a change, as big a this, be necessary ?
Frankly, for one country to "control" ICANN, with what ICANN "controls" is foolish. Especially the States, with people who seem to think that the free exchange of ideas is their personal property, and that since we're the "good guys" we can screw with the free exchange of ideas, and it's okay.
Mind you, I wouldn't trust any other country more. Independence from national issues is pretty much the only solution.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
They dish out IPs and run DNS.
What exactly do they want immunity from?
All corporations want to be "above the law". Plenty move offshore to accomplish this.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Lets just get rid of, as in incinerate, the dept of homeland security and the problem, as such, will just go away. Then we can all get back to what needs to be done.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Utter crap! First up, the US is no different from Switzerland in freedom of expression laws, secondly ICANN never said they wanted to be under UN control, therefore they are under no obligation to bow to pressure from any country which would be a better position than they are in now (being under pressure from Congress - who have a grrreat track record in legislating on Technology law - thing DMCA)
'If ICANN leaves the protection of the USA, ICANN will have to start recognizing all the repressive and bizaree anti-free expression laws of other countries'
The President is moving (via the Dept of Homeland Security) to eliminate those previous freedoms enjoyed by America. The Bush idea of free speech is far worse than the international one. Also you make it sound as if ICANN would be reduced to the restrictions of the worst countries when in reality ICANN wouldn't have to listen to any of them.
Switzerland is also the perfect place for this. They have long been an international haven with strong physical and legal security.
They have no power beyond the power of the US government, because Verisign controls the actual servers and use to have ICANNs job before ICANN came along. So no they won't relocate to Switzerland and no they don't want immunity from US law, they want immunity from being sued by disgruntled domain name holders.
Like the recent Registerfly domain registrar where they did nothing even as their domain names were lost until they were prodded into action by bad press.
It's where it's going that scares me.
The United States want TOTAL control of where you go, what you can do, etc. They're going to use 9/11 to get anything and everything it wants in terms of our liberties. And the fact of the matter is that it simply doesn't have the right to do that. Not only does it not have the right to be that intrusive on it's own citizens, it sure as HELL doesn't have that right to be that intrusive on citizens of other countries! "Hey, Canada won't accept our demands to make their own version of the DMCA? Cool, we'll do it for them!"
The United States has justified everything they do lately with no more than two words: terrorism or paedophilia. Those are the heavy hitters that get people moving. Even if the subject at hand has nothing to do with either of those things, they shove their laws down the throats of their own citizens on those two principles, weather they like it or not, and if they can't have it become a law, then the US just does whatever it is anyway (see: domestic warrantless wiretapping, secret spying programme, the FBI abusing the Patriot Act, etc.). Now you want them to be able to do that with THE ENTIRE INTERNET?
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Any move that takes the current US administration out of the picture is a step in the right direction. Bush and his cronies have become the Nazi of our time. If you aren't doing as they tell you it should be, you're the enemy.
Because, where it's going under US law is atrocious, appaling, broken, and unwelcome. The relgious right in the US can supress the creation of new TLDs for xxx because it's currently under US control.
The rest of the world isn't really prepared to have the US be capable of arbitrarily re-writing the infrastructure that is the internet on their whim, or to suit their needs, or to be able to spoof any IP on the planet. It has grown from being a research project in the US to a global infrastructure.
Do you think that the US would like it if, say, North Korea or Cuba could arbitrarily alter it? I bet the answer is no. Under the guise of national security, DHS will practically do anything they want to, and they have laws to make sure you don't tell people they did it.
I don't wish to be subject to the laws the asshats in Washington DC are writing. Neither does all of the rest of the world who aren't Americans. The US doesn't own the internet. I fail to see why the rest of the world would be eager to see the keys handed over quite so readily.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The question is not one of "human rights." The question is what a government does.
The Soviet Union had wonderful free speech laws. It's just that if you spoke out against Communism, those laws were not worth anything.
Many governments have ratified the UDHR, and few have truly respected its guarantee on freedom of expression.
Outlawing hate speech in Europe contravenes free expression, regardless of history. The problem isn't that Nazis are stopped. The problem is the general chilling effect it has on free speech.
I take note that the EU recently announced the censoring of the following words: "jihad" and "terrorist." It is simply Orwellian to attempt to ban words. In the US, if you use a hateful word, you are not put in prison (unless you physically threatened someone, which is different). In other countries, there is no telling what the legal system might do if you simply exercise your human rights.
Censoring words and thought itself is only possible in Europe because of hate speech laws.
The best response to disgusting and vile speech, like racist speech, is not censorship. Instead, following the tradition of John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty," the best remedy is more speech. If you find someone's opinion repugnant, then say that out loud in a public forum. When lots of people do that, hatred is turned back.
I do not trust Switzerland or Europe or Canada or Japan or Australia or China or Iran or any other country to protect my free speech. Nor do I trust the undemocratic UN. The most freedom of expression coupled with the best protection of that freedom is in the US.
[quote]I like where the internet has gotten under US law. Why would a change, as big a this, be necessary ?[/quote]
Because the US and it's "laws" has been changing over the last decade.
It used be the "land of the free and money" and this allowed the internet to grow (for good and bad) under it's control, now it's the "land of special interests and the money of the latter group" and this is not only holding the internet back but endangering the whole thing to the point where it might break apart.
The UN would be a far from ideal group to control the internet but these days it would be a 100 times better than the US
I thought "War on ...." was a code phrase meaning "an unsolvable problem we will waste billions of dollars trying unsuccessfully to solve using the same failing methods over and over again." Didn't it start with the war on poverty?
If by "waste," you mean "transfer to our campaign donors," then yes, that's exactly what it means.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The US ranks behind several other countries in terms of freedom of the press and corruption, but don't let that interrupt your nationalistic delusions of superiority.
Uh, are you unaware of where the root servers are currently?
Hint: They are all geographically dispersed. The root server assignments are dispersed, and each of them are mirrored and load balanced to a large number of actual machines all over the globe.
US has developed the Internet? That's taken too far. Internet had its beginnings here. Now it's infrastructure is spread all over the world, owned by thousands of companies and organizations in hundreds of countries. Saying that the US has the right to control the Internet is flat out ridiculous. Internet is common a good of a billion people worldwide and the fact that some of its critical parts are based in the US is our privilege, not some kind of favor we are doing. I am sure more than a few countries would be very happy to take over this "burden".
By the way, the World Wide Web, nowadays the Internet's most important part, was invented in... duh, Switzerland (CERN)