Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Clock Is Ticking For the US To Relinquish Control of ICANN (betanews.com)

Posted by timothy on from the independence-day dept.

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.

6 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      ICANN may not determine the internals of a network protocol, but they do handle how some of those protocols function. For example, beyond doling out IP addresses, ICANN doles out the AS Numbers used for routing on the Internet. They also choose what top level domains exist and who may assign to them. They provide the unique OID numbers used for SNMP. The select what codes are assigned to various protocols at the Ethernet level and the IP level, thus indirectly selecting what protocols are standard and may interoperate on the Internet. They select the numbers used in DHCP, thus selecting what information may be served via DHCP and what may not. They define what mechanisms are standard authentication for HTTP. They define what digest algorithms are part of the HTTP standard and how they are identified.

      They do various other related things that help people coalesce around standard names/numbers for making communication on the Internet possible.

  2. The way ICANN operates WILL change by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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....

  3. Not a good change of masters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Who will be in control? by malx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Replacing one questionable actor with multiple? by clay_buster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.