Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Seeks Veto Powers Over New TLDs

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the start-requiring-more-vowels dept.

suraj.sun writes "The Obama administration is quietly seeking the power for it and other governments to veto future top-level domain names, a move that raises questions about free expression, national sovereignty, and the role of states in shaping the future of the Internet. At stake is who will have authority over the next wave of suffixes to supplement the venerable .com, .org, and .net. At least 115 proposals are expected this year, including .car, .health, .nyc, .movie, and .web, and the application process could be finalized at a meeting in San Francisco next month."

14 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Governments love power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no surprise that Obama wants this power.

    It's just the thing they do. All governments and all people who lead them lust for power. Obama is no exception.

    Think about it: if you are a politician and aren't crazed with power-lust, you will be crushed by another politician who is. So we have a system where only the most maniacal, greedy, authoritarian-minded can get into power. Democracy? Ha.

    1. Re:Governments love power by sznupi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People want their government to have power of pushing things... which said people want.

      In the submission, linked below TFS, there's a mention of efforts for ".gay" TLD - many groups in the society would just love to block it. And many nations (and why it didn't make it to /. story, anyway? ;p )

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:Governments love power by JackieBrown · · Score: 3, Interesting

      THIS is why the US is supposed to have separation of powers (federalism) between the Member States and the Union government, so no one maniac can become too powerful, but over time many of us have forgotten that basic principal

      The term "state rights" is unfortunately now invokes the American Civil War.

      We have seen this with health care, immigration, and numerous other issues. It is easier to scream racist than to actually deal with the issue or to even debate who should deal with the issue.

      The other problem is people live in the moment. Bush got a lot of flack for not sending the troops immediately during Katrina. They felt that he should have bypassed the governor who was moving to slow. All the people whining at the time did not bother to think of the implications of the Executive Branch deciding on its own to invade (sorry - assist with keeping order) a state. While it may have been a good idea at the time, the precedent it would have set would have been terrible (same with the patriot act - useful at the time but something we will never be rid of now.)

    3. Re:Governments love power by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is no surprise that Obama wants this power.

      Except, of course, the summary was completely wrong and it is a proposal to spread out power among more nations and provide a place for an international consensus as opposed to a power grab by a single person or government. Now don't you feel silly for having wasted a perfectly good "power corrupts" speech?

    4. Re:Governments love power by BetterSense · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree completely, and I wish people would catch onto this already.

      A corporation's only drive, and reason for existing, is to increase its profits. Any services, offers, or goods that a corporation provides to you, are only provided if it increases the profits of that corporation, never because the corporation wants to actually help you out. Corporations never, ever do anything because they like you, or because you are a nice person. If they say that they care about you, it's only so that they can maintain a good company image which again, leads to more profit for them. All dealings with a corporation have to be put in the perspective that there is only one thing that matters, ultimately...the bottom line. Failure to understand this makes you a sucker, and corporations love suckers.

      In a similar way, the main motivating factor of government is to increase its sphere and scope of its authority, power and influence. That's it. Everything it does, it does in the quest for more power and authority. Any supposed benefits to you only exist if they help the ultimate goal of increasing government's role in your life, and increasing the size, authority, scope, and power of the government. The government never, ever does anything because it likes your or wants to protect you the way your parents might, for example.

      I've heard smart but naive people puzzle over why the government maintains the current income tax system when it could switch out to any number of revenue-neutral taxation schemes that would be much more efficient. There is no need to be puzzled, though, the answer is obvious...the current system of taxation aids the government's ultimate goal of extending the scope of its authority and influence. I have heard smart but naive people wonder why the government doesn't cut taxes to help the economy instead of 'stimulus' efforts that go to special interests, when it's pretty clear that lower taxes stimulate an economy. There is no need to puzzle, though, if you simply have the proper perspective on government and what it is. I have heard smart but naive people puzzle endlessly over why marijuana is illegal even though it's relatively harmless. I have heard smart but naive people wonder why we don't use alternate voting systems that are provably more efficient. It doesn't matter the issue, right, left, any aspect of government all of a sudden makes sense once you realize that the status quo is the way it is because it causes an increase in the size, scope, and authority of the government.

      It seems that most adult people, at least all but the most naive, understand that corporations' main motivating factor is to increase profits; many of those same people haven't put the government in the same realistic perspective.

  2. OpenNIC by ChasmCoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.opennicproject.org/

  3. Re:What?!? by croddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clearly someone needs to be in charge of new TLDs. I mean, seriously, we've got .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .aero, .info, .biz? For fuck's sake, when will this shit stop? My main concern with the plan here is that there's no way Obama is going to rule over TLD approvals with an iron fist. He's probably going to fucking allow some new TLDs. We need someone with some fucking balls, someone who will go through the whole goddamned queue and stamp DENIED. DENIED. DENIED. DENIED on the entire stack and then shit on it before delivering it back to the applicants.

    Seriously. We were fine with .com, .org, .net, .mil, .gov, .edu and a bunch of country codes. If you want a new TLD, it had better be a goddamn country code or I don't want to even hear you fucking talk about it. Take your stupid industry-specific vanity TLD bullshit and do us all a favor and shut your fucking hole. Forever.

  4. How about no new TLDs? by davidwr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A "fairer" idea: Stop issuing new non-country/U.N. TLDs.
    Put everyone on notice that if they register a NEW 2nd-level non-country domain name now (foo.com) it will be revoked in 10 years. Give existing domain owners a little longer - say, 15-20 years - to retire existing domains. Reserve .com.us, .edu.us, etc. for anyone with an existing or new .com, .edu, etc. for the next 20 years.

    People won't like it but at least it will end the bickering.

    Now, as for new 2nd-level.us domains, the USA can do that without stepping on other countries sovereignty and they can make whatever.cc without stepping on America's.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  5. Re:Wow... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The social conservatives didn't think porn would go away if they opposed .xxx. They were just afraid of 'legitimising' it - .xxx would have created a place for porn, while the social conservatives held that porn should have no place at all.

  6. .crap by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hopefully my suggestion for a new .crap tld that can be forced upon websites without the owner's consent will be implemented.

  7. Why? by atomicthumbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do we need more TLDs? .museum, .name, .aero, .biz, etc. already seemed like they were pushing it.

    --
    http://pinopsida.com
    1. Re:Why? by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do we need more TLDs?

      Because then you can sell all the same names again.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  8. Read TFA Carefully, Summary is Misleading by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Obama administration is proposing (PDF) that domain approval procedures be changed to include a mandatory "review" by an ICANN advisory panel comprised of representatives of roughly 100 nations. The process is open-ended, saying that any government "may raise an objection to a proposed (suffix) for any reason." Unless at least one other nation disagrees, the proposed new domain name "shall" be rejected.

    This would create an explicit governmental veto over new top-level domains. Under the procedures previously used in the creation of .biz, .name, and .info, among others, governments could offer advice, but the members of the ICANN board had the final decision.

    If you didn't already know, ICANN is under contract to the United States government. So Obama's policy would effectively globalize the approval of new TLDs, in effect giving the US less power.

    And if the story is to be believed, a TLD is only automatically rejected if one or more countries object and no countries disagree. If countries disagree or cannot form a consensus, the TLD isn't automatically rejected. Or specifically, from the PDF:

    String Evaluation: The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the following procedures related to the Initial Evaluation called for in Module 2 to include review by governments, via the GAC. Any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason. If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application. (Note that the application fees should be refunded to the applicant).

    Explanation: This proposal meets a number of compelling goals. First it will diminish the potential for blocking of top level domain strings considered objectionable by governments, which harms the architecture of the DNS and undermines the goal of universal resolvability. Second, affording governments the opportunity, through the GAC, to advise the ICANN Board that there is consensus GAC advice regarding particular proposed strings that should not be processed is supportive of ICANN’s commitment to ensure that its decision are in the global public interest.

    (Emphasis added.)

    So, in effect, it's creating an international body where members can object, but other members can block an objection. To my understanding, that's pretty much the opposite of veto power, and it's certainly not a US government takeover of DNS TLDs (in as much as they didn't own the process already).

    Really, it all depends on how much faith you have that the other, saner countries will block objections instead of being pussies.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  9. Re:Dear US Government, et. al. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Informative

    You should know by now the title and summary are usually wrong. The proposal is that veto power be given to an international review board made up representatives of at least 100 nations. So what is proposed is exactly the opposite of what you seem to be complaining about. This is spreading out the power to make decisions about new TLDs among many nations to make sure the interests of the world are represented.