Slashdot Mirror
ICANN CEO Wants To Make Progress On Leaving US Control
itwbennett writes: ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé hopes to make progress on preparations to take over running the world's central DNS servers from the U.S. government's National Telecommunications and Information Agency when the organization meets in London next week. 'I think this is a meeting where the ICANN community has to deal with the fact, the good fact, that its relationship with the U.S. government, which characterized its birth, its existence and growth, has now run its course,' Chehadé said.
The article is NOT about the DNS, although it is certainly about something extremely important: IANA.
NTIA (US gov agency) *asked* ICANN to provide a plan for the *stewardship* of IANA to move to ICANN.
ICANN is already the IANA *functions* contractor (i.e. it takes care of the operational arm of IANA), _and_ the global DNS coordinator.
That's it.
ICANN, when it was started, touted itself as an organization for everyone
They even issue "membership cards" to those who registered --- I did, and still have that membership card with me
But then it changed --- changed into a bureaucracy that only listen to the power-that-be, be it the government or the corporations
The move is rather symbolic. Economic espionage is too important. US economy is failing, jobs are only created in financial sector and military.
Dissidents are put in jail. No wonder US has the largest number of its own population in Gitmo style jails.
ICANN had the chance to really address this issue when they had the at-large members of its governing board. It would have had representatives from every continent and major group of people from the Earth, but now it is run by major corporations and a joke of an organization.
Just look up how Karl Auerbach was treated by ICANN (when he was a legal member of the board asking basic questions about its governance and finances), where he had to sue in state courts of California simply to get basic information like when meetings were being held and how its finances were being spent.
And this does NOTHING to stop the problem, just gives them less transparency.
TLD's like Namecoin's ".bit" are the main solution so you don't rely on single points of failure.
US government doesn't want, so don't even involve them unless you're simply telling them what you're about to do. US citizens tend to be nice people, but our government is a big gigantic predator. So do what you're gonna do, but realize the US government will only pretend to be negotiating, it's a delaying tactic.
I'm barely familiar with the facts at all, but I gaurantee I'm correct.
The whole thing doesn't make any sense at all. Let each country do it's own DNS as it sees fit and via treaty and alliances align those DNS records as they see fit. As long as the IP address work the DNS is nothing more than simplifying address entry with a gross corporatised delusion of economic value (marketing, marketing and more marketing, brand names, squatters, sex sells, hell it even sells domain names). At the end of the day it is still up to the individual user where the hell they point the browser in domain name lookup and the major ISPs haven't even started playing the DNS name game by forcefully pointing their customers at internal DNS servers with a new for sale yet again Domain name.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The relationship between the United States of America and Internet is like those of a landlord and property renter
true true... one of the most insightful comments I read on slashdot after the snowden thing was that we should all act as if the internet were a military installation and we were guests.
Each country could.... which is sort of the reason for the country TLD code. There is even a ".us" domain for American addresses (not that it is used much, but it does exist). I suppose a country could have its DNS servers ignore .com or .mil TLD codes in favor of stuff done in its own borders, but then it wouldn't really be the internet either, would it? One way to accomplish that is to redirect .com to .com.us as is sometimes done with some other countries like .co.uk as the top level domain for UK-based businesses. It would make things confusing if it was unevenly implemented, but that is sort of the nature of the internet in the first place.
Besides, this whole thing isn't about domain names, but rather the allocation of IPv4 addresses and the big issue of IPv6 allocation. The USA got the lion share of IPV4 addresses because many American companies got them first, and back when nobody thought that there could possibly be more than four billion computers and devices on the internet, they were a whole lot more free with the allocation of the address space (like the local university where I live has a full Class-B IP block allocation... although I'm sure they've "given" a few Class-C blocks back to ICANN over the years). They don't even refer to them as Class-A, B, or C blocks any more either but rather in how many bits are in the "header", as in a /16 or a /24 block. IPv6 does the same thing.
If IP address allocation was done on a country by country basis, it would be pure confusion when computers try to connect to each other (also confusion if countries each implemented DNS records differently, but I digress on that point). The crazy thing is that the U.S. government was originally responsible for allocating both the IP addresses as well as domain names, which is how ICANN inherited the job.... as an organ of the U.S. federal government and later a California-based non-profit corporation. Other countries could invent their own version of the internet, but they wouldn't be participating on this particular network you are currently using to read this message.
If your country (presumably not the USA) wants to change that relationship, have its diplomats and political leaders negotiate something different with the U.S. government. It really is that simple, and I guess what this guy wants to do in this case too. America could give up the control it currently has in this regard, but when have you ever heard of a politician giving up political control over somebody else?
if other nations want to limit google searches to only "favorable" found sets, then HELL NO do not give away control over the internet.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
IANA ?
I Am Not A what?
They had such a good deal here... all they had to do was not abuse it... and the fucktards in the US federal government just couldn't help themselves.
At this point, I'd welcome the dissolution of the republic. Let all the states go off and be 50 little countries. They can reform after the fact into larger conglomerates or federations if they want. But the US fed is consuming itself with a malignant belief in its own superiority.
They're endlessly arrogant. They think no rules apply to them because they make the rules. Even when the rules say whatever they're doing is outright illegal all they do is say something to the effect of "what are you going to do about it?"... And the answer of course is nothing... no one can slap cuffs on these people because they're the ones with the cuffs. No one watches the watch men as they say.
So I'm done. I'm not pushing for anarchy or whatever... but the US federal government is cesspit... De-authorize it and start over.
And because I'm paranoid enough to assume some government spider has flagged this as possibly seditious commentary. I'm not advocating violence which would be the only justification for your heavy handed abuses of power. I'm advocating passive resistance, any and all legal challenges that can slow you down, and if all else fails "going galt"... The machine is corrupt. Wipe the drive and reinstall from the factory discs. Short of that... I'll comply as required nothing more. American patriotism is increasingly difficult to justify especially if it involves loyalty to these criminals.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You kind of missed that whole treaties and alliances bit, didn't you ;). Those countries that work together will make it work, those that don't wont get to play. All the central body needs to do is register and acknowledge those treaties and alliances. The US really screwed the pooch when they nabbed .gov and .mil and so supremely arrogantly pretend like .gov.us and .mil.us don't exist to the point of not even redirecting them, as they as they are concerned they are the global government and the global military. Which is exactly why other countries need to take over .gov and .mil and locally redirect them to their own government and military. So another centralised control to be run from behind by US corporations, nah, not liking that idea much at all.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
..and you'll probably die from a hearth attack shortly after.
Meet the Australian Army.
Bandwidth would probably be ok, but the ping times would be horrible...
That's understating it. What the NSA did was more like setting up spy camera's in every room.
Right, something distributed and secure is badly needed.
Namecoin didn't solve the domain squatting issue though. I'm not sure it's solvable.
The NSA was then end of the open Internet. What we really need is a distributed DNS system that can't be screwed by IANA, ICANN, the UN, or any world government. And encryption everywhere.
You know the top level domains are generic don't you? The US is domain squatting ".mil" and ".gov".
".us" is the correct domain for country specific domains in the US.
The United States is the reason that Australia doesn't have an army. It's the reason that Israel has not preemptively attacked its neighbors.
Australia has an Army. I've seen them.
Israel would not be in a position to preemptively attack its neighbors if the UK/US alliance didn't create that country in the first place.
So if I buy hardware from China and use an open source OS created worldwide somehow you own that?
If DARPA didn't develop IP someone else would have. Your argument makes no sense.
You kind of missed that whole treaties and alliances bit, didn't you ;).
No, I didn't miss that. What you missed is that it is already under the control of the U.S. government, which makes such international treaties a total joke that can be thrown out the door at any time by the USA. It is up to other countries to try and negotiate through diplomatic pressure or however else to get the USA to give it up.
This includes the .mil and .gov stuff. Then again they could throw the internet protocols and standards out the window and start their own damn network too. Good luck with that.
It is nothing at all to do with the US, it is quite simply up to countries to legislate to local ISPs to point to local DNS servers by default and how those local DNS servers are run is up to those government. Nothing more and nothing less, so the imperialist US government can basically bugger off with it servers until such time as they come to agreement with other countries. Otherwise all those companies that invested in international but seized by US imperialist domains can complain to the US about their lost investment.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen