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."
Maybe they could bid for Sealand and create their own country. Or move to North Korean embassy. Seems to be a popular alternative now that U.S. is becoming very unfriendly to the Internet. But if they move, will they take the tubes with them, or will have to call contractors to install them again? Inquiring minds want to know.
However, it's unlikely that the Bush administration would grant ICANN these privileges.
So then it's more like ICANN'T, when you really think about it.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Mr. President, ICANN is asking for immunity and a full presidential pardon, signed, in writing, before they tell us where the bombs are planted.
Jack, this organization tried to KILL me!
Surely the model would have to be something like the WTO not the IRC?
For better or worse ICANN deals with a system carrying billions of 'all currencies' over the world.
But relocating to Switzerland would be soooooooooo cool!
Nico M, London, GB.
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.
They should've played nicer with the internet. Now it's taking it's ball and going home. Hope being "right" was worth it!
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!!!!
Mr. President, ICANN is asking for immunity and a full presidential pardon, signed, in writing, before they tell us where the authcodes are with our Registerfly domain names.
You know how animals like deer and cattle innately understand when a natural disaster is coming and instinctively seek safer ground?
It might be something like that.
I say they move it to China or Iran. After all, if they're good enough to sit on UN security councils and human right's councils, why not run the intarwebs, too?
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.
This is all about the recent request for access to the DNSSEC root keys. As a firm proponent of DNSSEC I agree, In ACSAC 2005 I published a paper proposing the IKS (Internet Key Service) a distributed domain-name based certificate authority grounded in DNSSEC and the sole authority of ICANN to assign domains. A functionally deployed DNSSEC would allow us to bootstrap strong end-to-end cryptography. Allowing the US government to spoof DNS entries would seriously impair DNSSEC and greatly damage my work.
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".
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.
"please name one example of a law that has changed to this effect."
Laws do not need to change in order for freedom of expression to be reduced or even wiped out. The political mood in the last 5 years has turned downright repressive; people in power will not hesitate to use their resources against you in case you dare express opinions against the current US political agenda.
Man arrested for wearing an antiwar shirt
Man arrested after addressing Cheyney on the Iraq war
Man arrested for handling toilet paper with Bush Face on it
Man arrested for dressing up and waving a fake gun
Killed GI's mother arrested
My other OS is the MCP!
Every country which has ratified the UN declaration on human rights (and followed through on their obligations, for example the UK) has equal free-speech to the USA. We just have different bugbears to you (in Europe, this is mainly we-hate-Nazis instead of we-hate-Terrorists).
I know this is touching on a political nerve, so I'm hesitant to say much, but regardless of those who ratified the UN declaration, the USA has a better track record than others.
Let's start with looking at the declaration. I believe the relevant section is article 19:
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Sounds good. Now I'm going to use Canada as an example as I'm more familiar with them (being that they are in close proximity to the US so more of their news makes it to me). Wikipedia mentions the following:
Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.
This is something I can offer some anecdotal evidence on as well. There's a website called The Smoking Gun that publishes police reports/mug shots/random documents from celebrity arrests and other amusing news in the United States. One of their reports each year is a list of porn from the US that is prohibited in their country... a testament to more permissive US laws regardless of the prevailing public opinion of such matters in the US.
More shocking to me (and I do apologize for this being anecdotal only) was a friend who visited Canada and had his computer's hard drive inspected by customs. He asked what they were looking for and was told "hate speech literature, etc". You may not believe it, but as a US resident I've never had to worry about the political contents of my computer. Further, I do have a number of Muslim friends. While some of them have voiced a concern to me that they fear government inspection in their lives (which is I believe what you were mentioning in your post) none of them actually fear imprisonment. They're more concerned with their loss of privacy and/or time wasted explaining to the government officials that they're not a problem. Now is that opinion prevailing in the US Muslim community? That I don't know and I've never seen a good poll on the subject.
Again, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, and I'm certainly not trying to absolve the USA of its many wrongs and problems, but free speech is something that they actually have a very good track record on. I think a lot of the XXX political "discussion" has been more posturing and catering to voters than politicians actually trying to effect change. This may sound odd, but in the US, we have many many policy decisions brought up that politicians *know ahead of time* will never come to be, how
[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."
"You know how animals like deer and cattle innately understand when a natural disaster is coming and instinctively seek safer ground?
It might be something like that."
More like roaches scurrying when the light is turned on.
That light of day can be a pesky thing - it makes all sorts of things visible.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
I still say it should become a function of the International Telecommunication Union. Yes, that's a UN agency, but during the Cold War their standards kept the West, the Soviets, and the Asians talking and telexing without too much politicking. (And they're located in Geneva.)
They say the mind is the first thing to
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)
All thanks to America's benevolence, business sense, and good design. These people's usage of the Internet in no way diminishes America's right to do, what it pleases with it, though...
Ha-ha!.. So, if one builds a playground for his kids, and allows other kids to come and play too (for their and his own kids' benefit), he loses the right to control that playground — while keeping "the privilege" of the upkeep?
I understand, how envy and similar emotions may make it difficult for foreigners to squeeze some gratitude towards America out of themselves. But for an American to do the same is incomprehensible. So good at seeing the other side, they lose sight of their own...
A common myth maintained by anti-American zealots uncomfortable with America's claiming credit for anything, however rightfully...
The idea itself was rather obvious to anyone "skilled in the field" and known (especially in America — ha-ha!) since before computers. As we know it today, it wouldn't have taken off without the Internet (duh) — although various BBS-es were early prototypes. What Tim Berners-Lee wrote at CERN would never have become "the Internet's most important part" without a product usable by a non-scientist.
Nor was it a browser in today's sence of the word, but rather more like a Wiki — tied to a single database (more like CERN's own BBS). He did not "invent it", he put forward one of the first (and very limited) implementations. For earlier ones see Xanadu and NLS — both, incidentally, by Americans (the latter, even, by the dreaded American Military!).
I'm still glad CERN exists, of course, but there is no denying, that its contribution to WWW is dwarfed by those of NCSA and other American organizations.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.