Slashdot Mirror
The Clock Is Ticking For the US To Relinquish Control of ICANN (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson writes: The U.S. is not afraid to throw its weight around; it likes not only to be involved in things, but to be in control. For decades, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) — the non-profit organization that manages IP addresses and domain names — has been overseen by the U.S. Department of Commerce, much to the chagrin of people around the world. Most upset are those who point to the independent nature of the internet, and the need for any body with global power to be similarly indpendent. Later this year ICANN is set — at long last — to completely separate from the U.S. government.
While this does hinge on U.S. government approval, by the end of September, ICANN could instead be in the hands of businesses, individuals, and multiple global governments. While the changing of hands should not alter the way ICANN operates, it is hoped that it will go some way to restoring faith that may have been lost after revelations about online surveillance by the NSA and other U.S. government agencies.
While this does hinge on U.S. government approval, by the end of September, ICANN could instead be in the hands of businesses, individuals, and multiple global governments. While the changing of hands should not alter the way ICANN operates, it is hoped that it will go some way to restoring faith that may have been lost after revelations about online surveillance by the NSA and other U.S. government agencies.
What does NSA spying have to do with who gives out domain names and IP address blocks? Stupidity.
Any link between ICANN and NSA (or any other information gathering organization) is utterly dumb. ICANN doesn't determine network protocols, ICANN doesn't have any say in encryption, ICANN doesn't deal with routing, ICANN is not about security. It is a little like linking the Dept of Agriculture with influence over the recent UN nuclear deal.
Moving ICANN away from a government can only mean one thing ... fees. The "corporation" part of their name is about to come into more play. Get ready to get gouged!
"While the changing of hands should not alter the way ICANN operates, it is hoped that it will go some way to restoring faith that may have been lost after revelations about online surveillance by the NSA and other U.S. government agencies."
Really? What do these two issues have to do with each other? Does the NSA somehow have a leg up on the competition because another US agency doles out IP address blocks?
Smells like anti-US idiocy, and I say that as someone who's not real thrilled with the NSA's activities.
Do you have ESP?
...While the changing of hands should not alter the way ICANN operates...
If the parties involved did not want the way ICANN operates to change, then why have they gone through such an effort in order to effect this change in the pecking order for ICANN?
.
fwiw, the efforts to pry ICANN away from US control have been going on since long before the NSA became a household name....
Switch ICANN to the UN, and things will be even worse. The US can be shamed by international pressure. The UN? Well, you are going to see censorship on a religious and political level that would have never existed before. Groups of political dissidents (think Kurds) would have their websites hunted down and destroyed, just like CP sites are now.
No thanks... the US isn't perfect, but that is a far better owner than repressive nations who will use the Internet to push their own political will and extreme agenda.
The story summary wrongly gives the impression that the US is forever interfering in ICANN's affairs. This is simply not true: while it does retain an oversight function, it has never used that to interfere in ICANN's operational matters. It does have ultimate oversight authority, and so is in theory the final recourse if ICANN should go off the rails. The question is, if the US gives that up, who gets the final say?
ICANN is a body that has power that Slashdotters should care about. It writes rules into the contracts it has with top level domain Registries, rules that individual domain registrants must obey. Mostly these rules are technical not policy, but that is changing. ICANN has long required domain registrants to submit to ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, which allows trademark owners to claim domains that are said to infringe their trademarks, even though the UDRP does not provide all the defences to trademark that ordinary law offers.
The UDRP is pretty much a settled part of ICANN's scope. But there are plenty of other interests (copyright owners, child protection campaigns, law enforcement groups from around the world) that would like ICANN to impose the rules they prefer on domain registrants too. And they're actively lobbying ICANN right now, have been for years.
Under US oversight, there was a principled commitment to the openness of the Internet, and the possibility of an ultimate recourse to Congress if these lobbyists capture ICANN. When that oversight disappears, it will be crucial to have enshrined in ICANN's constitution effective and enforceable means to constrain ICANN from scope creep. Arguments about that are what is delaying the removal of US oversight, with intellectual property lawyers and foreign governments fighting hard to give ICANN a broad Mission that allows it to implement their demands.
----before you Reply/criticize, please read at least one of the links I posted below - thank you ---
Change in ICANN has been impossible to come by. The only "representative of the people", Karl Aurbach
tried for years to get some accountability, some rationality, some responsibility. Instead all he got was
stonewalled. It makes for interesting but not hopeful reading that ICANN is ready to manage a global
network with ANY sort of eye to "the stakeholders."
It's like letting the MAFIAA manage the Internet. Their goals are to please THEIR stakeholders, which
do not include those of us who enjoy Pandora, Spotify, Hulu, Bittorrent, etc.
Here's that "interesting reading" I promised. It's a small but representative subset.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
http://archive.icann.org/en/co...
https://w2.eff.org/Infrastruct...
Ehud
Yes yes... its very trendy to hate on the US. But please consider the alternative here. The United Nations? Most nations in the world have a less ironclad notion of free speech than the Americans. To the contrary, the vast majority of governments desire radically restricted speech.
And surrendering ICANN to these people is likely to result in new rules put in place to restrict speech more than anything.
Keep in mind, why do these countries want authority over ICANN? What is it doing or not doing that they don't like? What would the US government be saying yes or no to here that has them so upset?
To those that will cite snowden in all situations, keep in mind that the push to get ICANN under international control predated that and regardless taking ICANN from the US won't change any of that anyway.
The entire thing is likely to be a shitshow.
That said, the good news is that ICANN just controls the DNS registries... so... worst case, if the whomevers fuck it up beyond repair we can just bypass their fuckwitted tables and use our own.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I really can't see how this is going to make ICANN more responsive or more trustworthy. We'll just end up with a bunch of questionable actors pushing their own (more restrictive) agendas. Look at how Iceland and Japan have been trying to stack the International Whaling bodies or what happens when you put Saudi Arabia and China on Human Rights boards. Some NGOs are sock puppets for their governments or corporations. European governments aren't any more trustowrthy. They drank from the same data tap trough as the US government.
You may not like having a US agency be a key player but at least you only have one player to monitor/harass/attack. Now you will end up with a whole bunch of players from non-accountable organizations.