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."

22 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe they could bid for Sealand by vivaoporto · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  2. yeah by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  3. Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  4. Red Cross???? by micronicos · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  5. Moving to Switzerland? by winkydink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Moving to Switzerland? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, I can just see Bush calling together a cabinet meeting and spouting forth a few classic zingers on how to "bomb" the internet.

      "We fight the internet over here so we don't have to fight it over there"
      "If the internet is not with us, its with the terrorists"

    2. Re:Moving to Switzerland? by onkelonkel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    3. Re:Moving to Switzerland? by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well hell, after we ousted them Nazi's then drove the USSR into the ground economically, we needed a new enemy. What better foe than one that absolutely, cannot be defeated?

  6. Good. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mind you, I wouldn't trust any other country more. Independence from national issues is pretty much the only solution.

      Given ICANN's checkered past, are you sure you would trust an independent ICANN?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. More true to life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  8. Re:ICANN? by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seriously, what is a "private international organization," why is it above the national laws of the country it is in, and most importantly, how do I become one?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  9. I have a better idea... by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:terrible news by mjmartin_uk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

  11. This, I can support by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Switzerland is the only country out there that I would trust. As a conservative Christian libertarian, I admire a country that has the cajones to actually tell a group like the EU to go f$%^ itself on pressure to change its tax laws. The Swiss also have a more limited government than we do in the US, and even if it is no longer as effective, the Swiss military model speaks to the traditionalist in me a lot better than what we are getting here. Why is that appropriate? Because our government has evolved away from its republican roots in many ways. I no longer trust it on just about anything. Let the Swiss handle it. Hell, they're the only ones who you can see doing the three things the Internet needs:
    • Run the technical management well.
    • Jealously guard it from the depredation of the UN.
    • Not provide any protection or assistance to police states that want to pervert it when people circumvent their efforts. The Swiss aren't perfect, but they don't have a reputation for publically attacking a country and then having that government torture mutual enemies *cough*extraordinary rendition*cough*Syria*cough*
  12. DNSSEC keys by John.P.Jones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  13. Its a Trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Another organization that wants to be above the by superbus1929 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".
  15. Re:terrible news by XSforMe · · Score: 3, Informative

    "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!
  16. Re:terrible news by A+Name+Similar+to+Di · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  17. All in how you look at it... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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."
  18. Re:terrible news by kaffiene · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.