Slashdot Mirror
US Government Withdraws IANA Contract From ICANN
mbone writes "The 'no cost' contract between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN over hosting the Internet Assigned Names and Number Authority (IANA) was supposed to be re-let this March. Now, it has been withdrawn, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) says that 'we are cancelling this RFP because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community.' This is a pretty stunning vote of no confidence in ICANN by the U.S. government, on the eve of the 43rd ICANN meeting in Costa Rica. Speculation is that this is related to the attempts of the ITU-T to take over Internet governance, but it also could be over the new global top level domains. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more about this in the weeks to come."
That's a bit of a customer device huge already - if you know what I mean.
first post!
All your bases are us...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I Am Not A contract?
The headline is a bit misleading. What NTIA did was withdraw the RFP. The IANA contract still stays with ICANN (contract extended until the end of September), and there will likely be another RFP.
However, it is indeed a big rebuke, because in the NTIA Notice they stated that " we are cancelling this RFP because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community" which is another way of saying that ICANN has not been acting in the global public interest.
The ICANN has been collaborating with the Amerian government for a while now, this move just makes it official that the government assumes total control.
ICANNT amiright?
'Nuff said.
1. Requests for global removal of the records of sites responsible for the slander (as defined by the United Nations) of the most excellent leadership or governance of its member states must be honored within 90 minutes.
2. All requests for resolution of .com domains must initially resolve to a United Nations maintained address that will host a site warning of the inherent dangers of private corporate entities.
3. The cost of traditionally US TLD assignments (.com .org .us .mil .gov) must average between 1500% and 2000% more than all other assignments, with the accumulated difference forwarded to the United Nations for fair and equitable distribution.
ICANN has been rolling out TLDs in order to profit its core constituency: the registrars.
.xxx -- except the registrar who pushed it and is now using extortion
tactics to pressure people into buying domains in it, e.g. "get yours...before someone
else does".
.info -- what, domains in other TLDs don't contain "information"?
(Well...alright...spammers needed it, and quickly overran it. It's been a best practice
in anti-spam engineering to block *.info and whitelist what you need for many years.)
But registrars stood to profit, especially from the spammers buying domains by the
thousands, so it was created.
.biz -- because we already had .com. But it was a chance to sell
the same thing twice, always a great business opportunity for registrars, so ICANN
made it happen.
.pepsi or .google or .dell.
Nobody needed
Nobody needed
Nobody needed
And nobody needs hundreds of additional TLDs, either. There is no clamor of voices among the billion people on the Internet for
It's not an exaggeration to say that the majority of domains in existence today are used for abusive purposes: spam, phishing, typosquatting, search engine manipulation, etc. Yet ICANN wants to do whatever it can to explode the number, to keep the cash registers ringing at the registrars.
What ICANN could be doing -- but isn't -- is to reign in the epidemic abuses. There are registrars that are owned by known spammers, for example. Another thing it could be tackling are domain confiscations (by the USG) without due process: ICANN can and should push back hard against that. But none of this will happen: ICANN is corrupt to the bone, a textbook example of regulatory capture, therefore it will do whatever maximizes the profits of its masters.
So why should we just go ahead and capitulate ownership? I mean, seriously? I'm all for helping out the world and all that, but I'm getting just a little sick and tired of everybody else trying to steal all our stuff.
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
-- Scotty.
I wonder if this has to do with the US authority over the Internet. We've already seen .com TLD takeovers, but maybe they want to do it in every country for the RIAA and friends. I have a feeling this is related to some new power grab.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
I suppose now the US will form a shadow imperial government dedicated to it's own dark deeds while publicly displaying a facade of pro-Democracy and anti-Authoritarianism until they amass total power over the world economies. Oh, wait...
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
at worst we still get porn everywhere on the internet
No, at worst you have people spending millions of dollars to pay for domains that they don't need or want, but have to get for defensive purposes. The XXX domain is bad porn sites (since it leads the way to further censorship), it is bad for the fundies (since it does not involve sticking their head in the sand), and it is bad for all other corporations (because they have to buy domians for defensive purposes). The only people who benefit from having more generic TLDs are the registrars who will rake in tons of cash selling them.
... if they will not be able to keep their lifestyle, going from country to country making 'meetings' in luxury hotels. Costa Rica is beautiful.
Request For Proposal
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
sounds like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_Law in a nutshell
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
ICANN has been bowing to pressure from the US government to allow the overtake of .COM domains. Whatever the details, it is excellent news that this corrupt organization is loosing.
I Am Not A ... fan of ICANN but I don't want the US government deciding what TLDs there should be.
It's oakgrove again (hate to bother you but...) You know, he's the ac posting/stalking/trolling nutjob who *thinks* you & I are the same guy, and stalks us both by ac replies. Give me a hand with him because he hassled myself & others for 8++ hours yesterday and I am sending back some of the same to he now exposing him in it, using a post of yours I bookmarked in fact for it in fact.
It's a +5 moderated post tree it's happening in, and he's NOT liking it. I am sure you don't like his b.s. anymore than I do, and would like to give him a piece of your mind too (nobody does it like you do @ times, funnier than shit).
See here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718299&cid=39314693 (from there onwards).
APK
P.S.=> That is, IF you have the time & inclination (I can see avoiding it too, to avoid hassles) but... he's SO DAMNED DUMB (if you read some of the links posted) it's not funny. Just teaching this little troll & stalk by ac post fool a lesson is all, hopefully preventing future re-occurences (doubt it, he's an "internet iron man" who raises hell online, but is a waste of life and worm in the real world I am certain)... thanks, & if not? NO biggie... the quote of yours I used set him off, because it wasn't "just me" showing how that scum operates here... probably elsewhere online too! apk
I am somewhat puzzled by this story. Checking out the IANA's site, looks like they are responsible for coordinating some of the key elements that keep the Internet running smoothly. Whilst the Internet is renowned for being a worldwide network free from central coordination, there is a technical need for some key parts of the Internet to be globally coordinated – and this coordination role is undertaken by IANA.
Aside from the TLDs, the IANA also gets things like Internet Addresses from the IETF, which it then doles out to the various Regional Internet Registries, such as ARIN, APNIC, et al. While these organizations are not subsidiaries, they do get their number resources from IANA, which ensures that resources are properly managed.
So the thing that surprises me is - how does the US government get involved in IANA and various TLDs? The only TLD they should be bothered about is .us. I guess one could make an argument for .com, .org, .net and others, but there too, they are assigned to non-US organizations as well. While the US may have 'invented the internet', its management as a worldwide resource has to be free of any country's government, even if the bulk of that organization's activities happen within that country.
Which is why it puzzles me that the government should be in any way involved in the relationship b/w ICANN and IANA.
One point in that RFP is that the contractor cannot create new gTLDs without permission of the U.S. Government. All they can do is recommend them.
ya know what's funny about that beef bit ...go research how much Canadian beef you eat. ....well we should have went full on to processing for ever cutting you out of a lot a jobs.
NO really we even let you take our beef process it and send it back and when you decided to stop all beef shipments that one incident which was taken care of
OH and we still want the billion you stole for softwood lumber.
AND next govt we get were gonna raise out oil royalties with a chinese exception so we got another miltiary to back us up.
YA we dont need you you need us. OH and to prepare we got samsung to move a solar array plant here so we really will have lots a oil to sell.
OH and tell hollywood were gonna cancel all foreign copyrights for ever and patents too. BOY i can see how wealthy we become while you drive your tanks around some deserts....on dreamed up oil. Part of your yankie attitudes is you just think people will take your lame insults.
THE internet was invented for everyone to use like are you watching cable right now? that was invented in canada....PERHAPS we should come and unplug all the cable in the USA ...SORRY OUT OF SERVICE TILL YOU START ACTING NICER>
Why not tell the ITU and other countries to get F’d, and then restrict our own government to the issues of national security, bodily harm, and the use of forceful or extortionate methods of coercion – having a country law, a GAC rule, or an IANNA process to discourage those harms via the internet makes sense. No other country law does.
We should not have any other such law in the US. And countries that disagree can always just unplug themselves. They all need the US more than the US needs the rest of the world all put together.
The US Government and all other governments have no legitimacy or rights, they are merely in possession of significant ability to inflict physical violence, which they may or may not chose to use to protect their citizens from others and/or from each other. And they should be allowed to do no more.
It's about time that the Internet cut it's ties with a government that has shown to have no respect for it's International character. If I had a vote, I'd vote for both ICANN and IANA to be distributed over several well informed, democratic countries that have no real political or economical ties to each other, or to single large other countries. Sure, it's hard to find those, you may have to compromise, but anything is better than to have a corpocracy rule the Internet by yanking domains and deciding what TLDs are allowed.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
What are they actually good for?
Beats me...
All those asking about change, should of course be attending ICANN in Costa Rica, and make those thoughts heard. That is where they give Public Forums voice to international concerns. Me for one will be there to ask that registrars no longer allow 'private' registration of domains. It is all well and good that the idea of posting phone numbers and email addresses might be seen to be a problem when exploited by spammers and other nefarious individuals, however there should be a requirement, that if someone wants a domain, which inherently is meant to serve public information, there should be requirement for ensuring that domains that get registered, publicly list the operator,whether personal or corporation, and validate that information. This makes it easier for all those in security, enforcement, spam protection etc to determine the reputation of the domain name. Many TLD's are not serving 'whois' information, and this should be a requirement, as well as putting the onus on the registrars to ensure that there is an accurate account holder publicly available via simple 'whois'
I guess I should have logged in first, rather than posting as anonymous..
"Speculation is that this is related to the attempts of the ITU-T to take over Internet governance"
I'm not sure who with a modicum of knowledge would speculate that, given that the ITU and ICANN are utterly separate bodies and don't like each other very much. Not re-signing with ICANN is not going to annoy the ITU at all.
however there should be a requirement, that if someone wants a domain, which inherently is meant to serve public information, ...
Says who?
It's ok for me to have a domain, so I can connect to my own computer without having to remember its IP-address.
"serve public information" also sounds a bit like "running a webserver". The Internet is a lot more than port 80 and 443, you know...
This makes it easier for all those in security, enforcement, spam protection etc to determine the reputation of the domain name.
It also makes it easier to track down people who doesn't share the public opinion, which can easily lead to (self-)censorship.
I CANNOT. Hahhaha...