Slashdot Mirror


Transfer of Internet Governance Will Go Ahead On Oct. 1 (computerworld.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Computerworld: The U.S. says it will proceed with its plan to hand over oversight of the internet's domain name system functions to a multistakeholder body on Oct. 1. Computerworld reports: "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), under contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce, operates the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) which enables the operation of the internet domain name system (DNS). These include responsibility for the coordination of the DNS root, IP addressing and other internet protocol resources. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency within the Commerce Department, said in March 2014 that it planned to let its contract with ICANN expire on Sept. 30, 2015, passing the oversight of the functions to a global governance model. NTIA made it clear that it would not accept a plan from internet stakeholders that would replace its role by that of a government-led or intergovernmental organization or would in any way compromise the openness of the internet. The transfer was delayed to September as the internet community needed more time to finalize the plan for the transition. The new stewardship plan submitted by ICANN was approved by the NTIA in June. NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling said Tuesday that the agency had informed ICANN that 'barring any significant impediment,' NTIA intends to allow the IANA functions contract it has with ICANN to expire as of Oct. 1, said Strickling, who is also assistant secretary for communications and information."

155 comments

  1. Fuck the editors!! by Desler · · Score: 0

    Hand over insight? Da fuq?

    1. Re:Fuck the editors!! by fisted · · Score: 1, Funny

      +1 Oversightful

  2. Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gondor had a better stewardship.

    1. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a mother. Dad and I share yours! /dropsmic

    2. Re:Thanks Obama! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Lord DNS-Tor?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you were born via spores?

    4. Re:Thanks Obama! by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Don't worry bro, now she can be overseen by the Russian and Chinese government, too.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    5. Re:Thanks Obama! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Wait... Monica Lewinsky had a kid and he is on slashdot ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  3. Much rejoicing... by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, on October 2nd the countries, where it is Ok to block the entire populace from foreign Internet-resources, where "hate speech", "blasphemy", and mocking the president or king are criminal offences — they will all have more say in how the network is operated than before. Yay!

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Much rejoicing... by ITRambo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your sarcasm deserves many up-votes. because it's all too true.

    2. Re:Much rejoicing... by npslider · · Score: 1

      "NTIA’s responsibility includes the procedural role of administering changes to the authoritative root zone file – the database containing the lists of names and addresses of all top-level domains – as well as serving as the historic steward of the DNS."

      I'm not sure if this will suddenly lead to the "blocking" of "undesirable" content.

    3. Re:Much rejoicing... by npslider · · Score: 1

      As long as the new ICANN Overlords continue to graciously grant me access to Slashdot from my basement, I will be happy.

    4. Re:Much rejoicing... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I though the transfer was away from the US Government.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:Much rejoicing... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Look at the bright side, it could speed up the obsolescence of DNS and maybe the whole server/client setup and actually make the internet more robust against censorship. Ad hoc networking could become ubiquitous and make the ISP a useless antique. That would definitely be a good thing.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re: Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're operating under the assumption that those countries have free Internet access already (USA included). It's easier to spoof at the network level than you think.

    7. Re: Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot will be taken offline for failing to qualify for a Website Halal Licence

    8. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice. I can't wait until government policymakers clue in on NATO's positioning the Internet as an operational domain (alongside land, sea, and air) and go forward with requiring some sort of hair-brained "digital passport."

      Perhaps, in the future, you'll be screened and interviewed, made to explain all those visits to Al Jazeera news, answer for those three connections to Tor this February. And this may very well be the domain of "customs."

    9. Re:Much rejoicing... by cryptizard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, not really. If you read the article you would find out that control is transitioning to multinational private sector stakeholders, so in reality Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. will have more say.

    10. Re:Much rejoicing... by kheldan · · Score: 1
      Sad to admit but I have to agree with you. I suspect this 'multistakeholder body' will be about as honest, forthright, and organized as the IOC, FIFA, or your average South American or North African junta government.

      We don't like Google, so we'll just arbitrarily reassign their IP addresses to someone we like

      We unanimously decided that the world is better off without pornography (as we define it, naturally, LOL) so we're cancelling the domains for all their websites -- for the children, of course!

      Ah well, the Internet was becoming too much of a mess anyway. Better start funding public libraries again!

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    11. Re:Much rejoicing... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I absolutely agree. In theory, one would think that the internet, being a global phenomenon, should be treated as such with no one nation having control. In practice, we have other countries bending over backwards to justify their anti-freedom of speech actions, and that's not okay. I'm not going to say that America is perfect...far from it, and in many many ways...but when it comes to freedom of speech, there's really no one even close.

      I keep seeing these stories about how this or another person got fined or arrested for saying the wrong thing, a lot in Europe lately, and I see people defending this as completely acceptable, arguing that they still have freedom of speech, just that freedom of speech does not include unpopular sentiment that they disagree with. Saying unpopular, unsavory, or downright asshole-ish things is the exact definition of freedom of speech. The idea does not exist to defend popular ideas, it exists to ensure that everyone, even people who might be downright wrong or mean, get a voice. There are places where if I say the Holocaust did not happen (wrong and hateful), sing a song about how Erdoan is a scull fucking douchebag (honest and accurate), or reject the state's religion or political ideology (every individual's choice), among plenty of other things, I could face legal consequences.

      And regardless of how you feel about any of those things, you don't get to take away another person's voice. There are ideas that I consider to be extremely dangerous and actively harming people and the planet but that I argue against them; doesn't mean I get to censor them. Speech is a human right, and that's end of the goddamn story. Recent events continue to show that not everyone agrees, and now they get greater control over the worlds most important communication medium? I don't like that. They say they will not compromise openness on the internet, but this is in a world where censorship in the name of 'preserving dignity,' whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, is argued to be not a violation of the human right to free speech; I ask them to lay out clear guidelines for openness. Like I said, America isn't perfect, but on this issue I trust the US a hell of a lot more than I do any other country.

    12. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You mean the US, where none of those things are happening. Don't worry, you Belgians will get to extend your censorship and hate speech laws to the internet soon.

    13. Re:Much rejoicing... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Riiight. Handing it over to a committee of committees will speed things up.

    14. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the new ICANN Overlords continue to graciously grant me access to Slashdot from my basement, I will be happy.

      Yeah, fuck all those other people who want to access information regarding sex and puberty and religion and all the other "hot" topics that such regimes would want to restrict access to. As long as I can access slashdot, I too will not waste my time defending those people!

      Goit.

    15. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This move paves the way for our replacement structure, and they now won't be able to sue in US courts, so HA HA HA.

    16. Re:Much rejoicing... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      What's the alternative? It's wrong to give up US dominance, and it's wrong to not give up US dominance, so...? We certainly do not have a good record of fair and impartial governance from the US, but neither do international bodies, so it's a toss up. Keep US dominance if you're a jingoist, or accept that commerce is an international concern and so the internet should be governed by international bodies just the same as other areas of commerce.

    17. Re: Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am going to miss pornhub

      I bet the net will be far friendlier after they ban vpns and limit encryption to 40 bits

    18. Re:Much rejoicing... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, more people will become more interested in circumvention. A whole new system that can't be brought down by vested interests may emerge. The survival of worldwide computer networking will depend on it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    19. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet does and should spread the traditions and heritage of Americans, including the laws of the USA. This is right and natural.

      I wouldn't be surprised if this move left the Internet open to new attacks.

    20. Re: Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      And that would be bad because... ? Face it: the internet needs policing. We as a society do not need or want hate speech and political heterodoxy. People need to be told what to think and only the EU can legitimaly do that.

    21. Re:Much rejoicing... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      We certainly do not have a good record of fair and impartial governance from the US...

      Can you point to any instances of IANA policy or decision making to substantiate this claim? Keep in mind that you need enough to form a trend that would indicate a bad record.

      I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply, but I hope you hold yours while you look. Don't stop looking until you find some.

    22. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANA, no, pretty clean.

      ICANN, dirty from day 1.

    23. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but when it comes to freedom of speech, there's really no one even close.

      As a Scandinavian, I respectfully disagree.

    24. Re:Much rejoicing... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      So, on October 2nd the countries, where it is Ok to block the entire populace from foreign Internet-resources, where "hate speech", "blasphemy", and mocking the president or king are criminal offences â" they will all have more say in how the network is operated than before. Yay!

      Correct - what has for a few decades been a de facto international institution will no longer be wholly owned by just one nation, which actually constitutes an increment in democracy. So, I think your rant is misplaced. Firstly, America is not suddenly being put outside the door without influence, and I suspect this is just a formalisation of what is already happening - I'm sure ICANN has for years consulted other major players on the internet about their policies, so the difference is probably not all that big. Secondly, instead of whining over "Somebody took my toy away", you Americans should be proud - much of what makes the internet so beneficial today, is the achievement of America: American companies and people, whose ideas have been instrumental all the way through; and now you crown the achievement by giving it to the world. Nobody has taken it by force, you have decided to give it away freely. Be proud.

    25. Re:Much rejoicing... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      While the US might have strong freedom of speech protections, it has extremely poor copyright laws. Some of the worst in the world, in fact. It's particularly unsatisfactory that US authorities control and can seize non-country specific TLDs like .com, .net and .org. If your site operates legally within your country, but annoys the MAFFIA, your domain can be taken by the US government, and that's just the start of it.

      The US also has extremely poor privacy laws. It's less of an issue with IP numbers and DNS, but still worrisome. And this move to give more corporate control over those systems is worrying too - the US has a fairly weak democracy where money has the most control, rather than the people, which brings us back to the MAFFIA and other copyright abusers.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:Much rejoicing... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Like I said, America isn't perfect, but on this issue I trust the US a hell of a lot more than I do any other country."

      But this in itself is just nationalist patriotism, the US has a long history of censorship on the internet via things like ICE domain seizures, which unlike, say, China's censorship, enforce censorship globally to every country, not just the country engaging in censorship (the US).

      If you believe in single country stewardship if that country would offer better protections than any other then it's nonsensical to favour the US over many others. If you're going for single country stewardship then why not go for a country that has a much better track record on political neutrality, political transparency, and freedom, such as Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand or similar?

      Personally I think single country stewardship is a bad idea though regardless, in Asia there is censorship over blasphemy, Europe it's holocaust denial, in South America it's criticising government, and in North America it's defying the copyright cartels. All-country stewardship where changes can only occur based on 100% consensus is the only way to really protect free speech on the internet because that way you get all the benefits of the US veto you have currently but with the added advantage of countries like Russia and China being willing to block US copyright censorship.

      Long story short though, there is no rational reason to prefer US single country stewardship if you believe in freedom and openness of the internet, and if you do so then it's because you're letting nationalism take priority over the things you're professing to want to protect. That is, when you say you trust the US more, what you're saying is "I want our guys to retain control, even if that means a bit of censorship" - you're arguing in favour of US control and NOT freedom from censorship, because the US already engages in that in a manner that effects everyone across the globe, not just those inside it's borders.

      Really, if the US were a good steward of internet freedom then rather than engaging in global censorship via domain seizures it would set up it's own Chinese style great firewall and just block it's own citizens from accessing those sites it finds offensive such that it's politics remains only a problem for it's own people, and not censorship for every single person on the planet, including the 7billion+ that live outside of it's borders.

    27. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As another Scandinavian, I don't understand how you could possibly disagree. USA has the most liberal freedom of speech legislation on the planet. The Scandinavian countries limit it many ways. While many of them can be argued to be for a good cause, e.g. hate speech, they're still, by definition, limits on the freedom of speech the USA do not have.

    28. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because none of those "private sector stakeholders" are corporate stooges wholly owned by the Chicoms. Okay.

    29. Re:Much rejoicing... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I keep seeing these stories about how this or another person got fined or arrested for saying the wrong thing, a lot in Europe lately, and I see people defending this as completely acceptable, arguing that they still have freedom of speech, just that freedom of speech does not include unpopular sentiment that they disagree with

      I prefer racist asshats to spend time in jail than a well mannered and good contributor to society having their life royally screwed up for daring to download a shitty music album.

      Yes there is a better way to govern people online.
      No I don't think the US is a good model regardless of how good your right to hate speech ... err I mean free speech laws are.

    30. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you know what to do, right?

      Start supporting your free, alternate domain nameservers. (or even paid ones)
      Fuck ICANN'T, but fuck everyone else more.

    31. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whose the puppetmaster whom influences those "stakeholders"? When the goal is to gain control over the most influential medium that has worldwide impact, the game is now with the top levels of technology. In order to get that control one must remove it from those whom do not have blind faith (e.g., from bribes, blackmail, etc) in what you want to achieve (ultimately gain control over).

      It's like the old banker saying, "Give me control over a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws". We see how that affair (worldwide now) is working to the advantage of, well, you know...

    32. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANA, no, pretty clean.

      ICANN, dirty from day 1.

      Problem is, we are giving up government oversight of the IANA portion and handing it to an ICANN-like organization.

    33. Re:Much rejoicing... by Coren22 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did you actually read what was written in the post you responded to?

      Darinbob was talking about the record of the US as a whole in fair and impartial governance, not ICANN or IANA. ICANN has its issues, but for whatever reason, the Internet has been able to remain above politics in the US.

      It is the massive number of countries calling for censorship that are really asking the US to give up governance. The first thing I expect will be regulated will be porn. Russia would rule that all gay porn should be outlawed, while the Muslim countries all agree, meaning half the world would vote to outlaw gay porn. The Muslim countries will feel that is not enough, all porn should be banned, as it is all sinful in their eyes. Pretty soon, porn is not allowed on the public internet.

      This is what we have to look forward to. After all, the famous quote starts "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist." First it will be gay rights, which is a touchy subject in most of the world, but it won't stop there, who will speak out?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    34. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Speech is a human right, and that's end of the goddamn story.
      Except when it's not, like provoking illegal acts, grooming children for pedophile networks, libel, insider trading, ...

      There are LOTS of things you're not allowed to say or do.

      As for trusting the USA? Sort out your political corruption and election-rigging, adhere to the ICC, then let's talk about "trust".
      For many of us, out here in the rest of the world, you have too many moneyed and unprincipled scum running around out of control for us to unilaterally trust the USA.

      As a parting note, do yourself some research on the MegaUpload raid, and you'll see that american authorities will bend over for pennies and ignore domestic, foreign and international law whenever they please.

    35. Re:Much rejoicing... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      US authorities control and can seize non-country specific TLDs like .com, .net and .org.

      Those are country specific, they have always been US domains, not worldwide domains. There is also the .us domain, but .com, .net, .org, .gov have always been US TLDs.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    36. Re:Much rejoicing... by budgenator · · Score: 2

      It's not that most of what you are saying is wrong, but when you say

      Personally I think single country stewardship is a bad idea though regardless, in Asia there is censorship over blasphemy, Europe it's holocaust denial, in South America it's criticising government, and in North America it's defying the copyright cartels. All-country stewardship where changes can only occur based on 100% consensus is the only way to really protect free speech on the internet because that way you get all the benefits of the US veto you have currently but with the added advantage of countries like Russia and China being willing to block US copyright censorship.

      you should be aware that Europe will need to get their holocaust denial thing in so they'll abstain when South American Government Slander thing goes up for a vote, and of course for Russia to get their gay porn banned they'll have to go along with US copyright censorship and by the time all of the horse trading is done we'll end up with not the best of all out comes but the worse.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    37. Re:Much rejoicing... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "make the ISP a useless antique"

      Ah, the magic wires argument. Sure.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    38. Re: Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or failing to be ethnically diverse enough. Or because it doesn't have enough mooslems.

    39. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not clear from TFA which institution is to be the new Internet Overlord. If it is the WTC everybody can relax.

    40. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the magic wires argument. Sure.

      I think he was intending to say he'd like a distributed Internet. Something like blockchain and stuff. He's not entirely wrong...

    41. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make me feel terribly better :(

    42. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in South America it's criticising government, (...)

      I need you to define which South America you are talking about, because, where I live, to trash the government aloud, in the streets by the millions, in the stadiums and on the media is a national sport [and nobody gets hurts or in jail in the process].

      Greetings from Brazil.

    43. Re:Much rejoicing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your DNS's. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

    44. Re: Much rejoicing... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      None of which makes ISPs 'antiques'.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    45. Re:Much rejoicing... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Ah, the magic wires argument. Sure.

      Magic indeed.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    46. Re:Much rejoicing... by Xest · · Score: 1

      To be clear I wasn't referring to the entire continents - only a handful of European countries engage in holocaust denial censorship for example (the UK doesn't, but it does engage in US style copyright censorship).

      My point was simply that there is censorship coming from every corner of the globe, and the number of trustworthy stewards on any continent is small. You're absolutely right, Brasil wouldn't be a bad steward, I was thinking more of nations like Venezuela for what it's worth.

    47. Re:Much rejoicing... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      You just proved his point.

    48. Re:Much rejoicing... by Xest · · Score: 1

      Actually I completely agree that there are some arguments for US single country stewardship and you're right, removing that risk scenario is absolutely one of them, my argument was simply that freedom of speech isn't an argument for US stewardship because it already enforces worse censorship on the net than any other country because US censorship is applied to all 7.4 billion people in the world, whereas even Chinese censorship only hits their 1.3 billion own citizens.

      Though as I say I personally don't really think that argument wins over even though I agree it's not entirely unreasonable. The reason I think this is because if the US was willing to sacrifice it's veto in a multi-country stewardship environment, what's to stop it doing so now? Can we really guarantee the US wont agree to arrest, deport, and take down the domains of Chinese dissidents in return for, say, China agreeing to actually enforce copyright laws? If we can't trust them to do it in a multi-country stewardship environment, then why would we trust them to do it outside of that? The point being that in a multi-country environment where the whole world is involved you have to convince each and every single country in the world of each and every measure, that in my view, is far less risky than just having to convince one country.

    49. Re:Much rejoicing... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You just proved his point.

      While making my own.

      Free speech can go to hell in a world where a corporate entity fucks up lives far worse

    50. Re: Much rejoicing... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      And that would be bad because... ?

      Because of...

      Face it: the internet needs policing. We as a society do not need or want hate speech and political heterodoxy

      Which is why you shouldn't be involved in the decision making.

      People need to be told what to think and only the EU can legitimaly do that

      I see what you did there! And I fell for it for awhile. This post should be modded up, not down.

    51. Re:Much rejoicing... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      But then how would we all exercise the Republican-sponsored right to see what Republicans want us to see, think what Republicans want us to think, and do what Republicans want us to do?

      I'll clue you into something -- Democrats have traditionally been the Party of Censorship in the US, not the Republican Party.

    52. Re:Much rejoicing... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The first thing I expect will be regulated will be porn. Russia would rule that all gay porn should be outlawed, while the Muslim countries all agree, meaning half the world would vote to outlaw gay porn. The Muslim countries will feel that is not enough, all porn should be banned, as it is all sinful in their eyes. Pretty soon, porn is not allowed on the public internet.

      And how will that be enforced? Revoking domain names?

      That will be fun; it is time to implement an alternative to domain names anyway and of course porn will lead the way.

  4. Doesn't change anything by npslider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The NSA still owns all the Internet's anyways. :)

    1. Re:Doesn't change anything by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      no, just copies of it squirreled away on harddrives somewhere

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Doesn't change anything by ichthus · · Score: 1

      Funny, because the NSA got owned. NOW, who's the boss?

      --
      sig: sauer
    3. Re:Doesn't change anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you, Captain Hiller?

      THAT'S RIGHT! THAT'S RIGHT! That's what you get! Look at you, ship all *banged* up! Who's the man? Huh? Who's the man? Wait till I get another plane! I'm-a line all your friends up right beside you!

    4. Re:Doesn't change anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all your DNSes are belong to us!

  5. Queue the fracture by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I predict we'll see a split of the internet along international lines shortly thereafter. Under the laws of each nation certain content will be unacceptable and each domain will begin by censoring those that interfere with their personal political agenda's on how things should be represented. Within a year half the net will not 'see' the other half and business and commerce will stutter and survive in certain regions and fail in others.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Queue the fracture by npslider · · Score: 1

      Canada!!!

      Yes, I'm talking to you.

      I'm your upstairs neighbor. Don't you go blocking my Facebooks!

      Good.

      Now that I have settled that, I can sleep easy tonight.

    2. Re:Queue the fracture by ADRA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its always been the case that anyone with enough determination could make a new internet that does the exact same thing as the current one but maintained by themselves. If someone wants to jump the shark and break compatibility, companies and countries will decide on whom to follow.

      If you think the internet has lasted decades purely because of US based custodianship, then strap on your tin foil hat because every story about interruptions/censorship/shaping/etc.. will now be coloured by this rather non-story forever afterwards.

      --
      Bye!
    3. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I really hope so.
      The rest of the cheap outsourcing world can tell us to fuck ourselves. We're cut off.
      Then US will experience a boom time again while the previously outsourced countries have civil war trying to figure out why things got bad.

    4. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a way, that has already happened.

      The Great Firewall of China.

      Large swaths of the middle east blocking social networking they disagree with.

      The USA going after online gambling sites and TPB.

      Countries in South America blocking online games.

      Countries in Europe clamping down on encryption.

      North Korea where only a few high ranking party members are permitted to use it at all.

      You're probably right that it will accelerate in the future, but we haven't had one internet for a long time. We had in our grasp the ability to bring all humanity together with freedom of communication, uncontrolled by governments or multinationals, and we dropped the ball. What could have been a tool for unprecedented freedom, is turning into a tool for unprecedented mass surveillance.

      We had one shot. It isn't often something like the printing press or the internet comes along. We had this one our hands, and one little step at a time, we said, "we don't care about freedom", until the weight of all those steps together became too great to overturn.

    5. Re: Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are alternative DNS', there is OpenNIC, and even some ISPs have their own.

    6. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's "upstairs" from Canada? Shrinking polar ice caps? Russian ice-breakers?

    7. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet2 !! Somehow twice as fast over the same pipes.

    8. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cue.

    9. Re:Queue the fracture by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      I'd strap on my 'tinfoil' hat but I can't get tinfoil anymore. It has been replaced by aluminum foil and that isn't effective.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    10. Re: Queue the fracture by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      The Hamiltonians created conditions for as powerful a government as possible to interfere in people's lives. They've had plenty of time to refine it and now we've got the worst of the worst contending for a position that never should have existed in the first place. It's not too late to fix that and it's not too late to fix what should have been done with the internet and networking in general.

    11. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean intelligence trawl....errr sorry 'fishing vessels'

    12. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to... now, when all of that is already true?

    13. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is already happening, if you keen yourself in being as a regular /. reader.

    14. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are alternative root DNS servers out there, you know.

    15. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol wat

      The internet is already heavily fractured.
      These countries regularly block entire ranges of IPs just to kill off a site, while also catching "legit" websites that did nothing to upset their little feelings.
      Hell, Pakistan blocked Youtube for a most internet users and blamed it on an "accident" with routing.
      The whole internet is based on trust between peers. That trust is abused a lot.

      This will change absolute nothing.

    16. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Chile is in the basement. I fail to see your logic. Let Mercator's stomach be roasted in hell.

    17. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet is already balcanized by mobile apps that don't talk to one another. FWIS people seem to have forgotten about the old www. Now it is all tunnel vision and opinion bubbles. This is kinda end of the road, and we need a new model. Sad but true.

    18. Re:Queue the fracture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the bears. npslider is clearly a Polar Bear. On the internet, no one knows you are a Polar Bear, so they used the opportunity to sneak in and crash the party.

      Damn you Polar Bears!!!

    19. Re:Queue the fracture by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      Fracturing the Internet is a lot harder than you might think. You might want to look up something called, "Internet protocol version 8". The basic idea of IPv8 is that the results of the call to getHostByName() is not actually the address of the machine in question. Instead, it is a magic cookie that can be used to reach the machine in question. The entire Internet is actually divided at special routers, called Stargates; if you are talking to a machine on the other side of a Stargate, then the magic cookie in question will reach the Stargate, and the Stargate knows how to forward it onto the next destination (either the actual machine or yet another Stargate).

      Within a given subsection of the Internet, you have a full set of IP addresses available. The address 8.8.8.8 might reach Google's DNS server from within the United States, but if the great firewall of China has Stargates isolating it, then within China the address 8.8.8.8 will refer to some other machine. Of course, from within China, asking the name servers for "ns.google.com" will not return 8.8.8.8; instead, the query will trigger the Stargates such that the address returned will cross the Stargate boundary and reach Google with a return address that will also cross the boundary.

      IPv8 was never finished; I have no clue what the current status is, but I believe it would be abandoned. The code for what was written is probably available somewhere.

      If the API for network communication was sane, and did not expose struct sockaddr or require you to pass a cookie from getHostByName to struct sockaddr, v8 probably would have been finished, or at least a lot further along.

  6. how oddly appropriate a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The transfer was delayed to September as the internet...

    As if it could have been anything else.

    1. Re:how oddly appropriate a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was NFL pre-season of course!!!

    2. Re:how oddly appropriate a time by npslider · · Score: 1

      If they also suddenly mandate that all voting be done online...

      Then I may begin to worry, and don my foil hat.

    3. Re:how oddly appropriate a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is always September on the internet.

    4. Re: how oddly appropriate a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this transfer won't count?

  7. Re:Everything is ready for putting USA into irrele by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't sweat it dude. Your corporate overlords will remain in power, and keep handling which ever irrelevant face gets voted into office.

  8. I can see it now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They transfer it to this body because it isn't a government entity. Two days later, that body transfers it to some Nigerian Prince for the magic beans he promised them.

  9. Re:Everything is ready for putting USA into irrele by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 0

    Wrong. It is the Illuminati that are to be blamed. They, together with Sasquatch and Nessie are responsible for the decline of the US.

  10. So this is actually happening? by sdguero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just the other day I was talking with an older German lady at a community council meeting. We were discussing about all the global problems we are having right now and she was waxxing poetic about Chinese an Russian hacking activities on the web. I reassured her that as long as DNS is under US government control, we holds the keys as far as global internet abuse and censorship. Welp I guess that's over.

    Seriously, we should not have given this up.

    1. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another example of the current US administration actively working to water down the United States role in the world. Their motto - 'No country is special'.
      While not perfect, my country has defended freedom, its people voluntarily sacrificed their lives, given hope and freedom to, in summation, close to a Billion people. When you have a solid democracy, a strong method to defend the weak and a good moral compass evil is kept in check.

    2. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump. Now go back to bed and thank $Deity that you have Merkel.

    3. Re:So this is actually happening? by cryptizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is some serious whitewashing of history. Almost none of that is true. We don't have a democracy, we have a federal republic. Even in principle, if you want to argue that we have a representative democracy and the people's will is carried out indirectly, many laws passed these days do not have popular support. Also, where is this supposed strong moral compass? We haven't done anything for anyone that didn't help us first in quite a long time.

    4. Re:So this is actually happening? by cryptizard · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why should the US get to control the internet? Internet access was declared by the UN to be a basic human right. It should not be controlled by one nation. We don't even have a particularly good record of internet freedom anyway.

    5. Re:So this is actually happening? by balbeir · · Score: 1

      Why should the US get to control the internet? Internet access was declared by the UN to be a basic human right. It should not be controlled by one nation. We don't even have a particularly good record of internet freedom anyway.

      Yeah, what have the romans ever done for us ?

    6. Re:So this is actually happening? by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      I read your comment 4 times and I still don't know what you are saying. What do romans have to do with anything?

    7. Re:So this is actually happening? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Monty Python Life of Brian. Watch and learn.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why should the US get to control the internet?

      They have had it so far and look what happened. Without that stewardship the internet, which you are using right now, would not exist. Things can only go down from here when we transfer that control to every tin-pot dictator the world over.

    9. Re:So this is actually happening? by cryptizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, control is not really being "transferred" which you would know if you read any of the articles about this. ICANN is still doing the same job it was before, effectively controlled by the same people that controlled it before. It will just not have the US Government looking over it's shoulder the whole time. The power is in the hands of the board of directors, who are, surprise, industry IT people. Not the Shah of Iran. Executives from Time Warner Cable, Google, etc. Nothing will change. Aren't people here usually AGAINST the US Government controlling things it has no business controlling?

      Second, what kind of "stewardship" do you think they are actually doing? The internet was formed almost entirely by private corporations. The government had a hand in getting the ball rolling, but it is a long leap to say that without the US government we would not have the internet today.

    10. Re:So this is actually happening? by sdguero · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I suggest you and the UN read up on internet history before making demands about who should control it. Giving up control to a conglomerate made up of nations that have actively censored the web in their countries in the past seems like a far worse option that keeping things the way they are now.

    11. Re:So this is actually happening? by cryptizard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Says you. There are 7 billion people on the planet and almost all of them don't live in the US. Besides, as I've written elsewhere, control is not going to other nations. Rather it is going to the board of directors of ICANN, which is made up of private industry executives. Control is going to TIme Warner Cable, Google, etc. Do you really thing ICANN is going to be run by Iran or North Korea or something?

    12. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the most accurate term is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic. Whew, say that 3 times fast.

    13. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Bravo!

    14. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Merkel? The one whose government won't acknowledge that muslim 'migrants' are raping women in the streets? You know, because 'multiculturalism'

    15. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you born this stupid, or did it take practice?

    16. Re: So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't screw with it too badly as their cash flow depends on it. Muslims will just kill it or cripple it for the sake of their sick death cult.

    17. Re:So this is actually happening? by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Very useful comment, thanks for the input.

    18. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Putin and President Obama disagree. Your speech sounds to me like you are a racist who hates blacks and loves Nazi pedophiles. Expect to be rounded up shortly and brought before a justice committee that will sort out your disordered thought patterns and replace them with thought profiles approved by the new world internet order.

    19. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like you are one of those evil white racists that disagrees with President Obama.

      racism

    20. Re: So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      representative and republic are redundant but the rest is ok

    21. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be that in the past our 'moral compass' was just a means to assure the USA's superiority, What has changed is that for the past 20 years and especially with this president, the political class is actively working against the interests of the citizens of the USA. President Putin is no saint. He really does not give a fuck about 'doing the right thing'. (though he might say he does) However he does do the right thing for Russians. However President Obama is actively fucking over his own people (both black and white). The only people he seems to care about are brown people living in the USA illegally.

      Morals are always subjective. It is generally acceptable to fuck over other peoples in strange lands. It is never acceptable to fuck over your own peoples or your friends. Russia, China, and Mexico understand this. They are gobbling up the world (for the benefit of those they are gobbling up of coarse) The USA used to understand this. (that is how we civilized the West) Today the USA has lost it's direction. Rather than enforcing the Monroe doctrine, we are worried about CO2, gender roles, and handing over the internet.

    22. Re: So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the Bundespolizei pays you a visit for your hateful racist speech. You will lose your job, your home, your family.

    23. Re:So this is actually happening? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The US only has control as long as other nations tolerate it. If the US ever gets too heavy handed or doesn't act fairly, other nations will just fork DNS. They have more people, US companies will work with them to ensure that disney.cn and amazon.fr keep working in those markets.

      The split is inevitable one day. The two systems will mirror each other for 99.999% of domains, but disputed ones will differ between competing root servers.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet is basically a larger version of the original ARPANet. It is, by definition, purely a US governement product.

    25. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should the US get to control the internet? Internet access was declared by the UN to be a basic human right. It should not be controlled by one nation. We don't even have a particularly good record of internet freedom anyway.

      While the US may have its problems, are there any better alternatives (either individually or collectively)? From a technical perspective things have been running okay (notwithstanding the questionable necessity of a bazillion new TLDs).

      (Speaking as a Canadian.)

    26. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Control is going to TIme Warner Cable, Google, etc.

      That makes me feel so much better. Especially when the movie and/or music studios start getting control and bring up copyright. I'm sure private corporate interests (like Rupert Murdoch) will have everyone's best interest at heart.

    27. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was with you until you said the US government had "no business" controlling ICANN. Motherfucker, if I invent something that everyone else in the world wants to use I sure as shit have some business controlling it. The world may decide someone else has a better claim/reason to control it, but that doesn't mean I have "no business".

    28. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Obama cares about these brown people so much then why has he deported more of them than any previous president? Oh yeah, because you are completely making shit up.

    29. Re:So this is actually happening? by cryptizard · · Score: 2

      Man people around here are so damn hypocritical. The US should control the internet forever because they invented it, but fuck lifetime patents and copyright extensions that stifles innovation! Lol.

    30. Re:So this is actually happening? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Turn in your Nerd Card, you poser.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    31. Re:So this is actually happening? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You're right, Slashdot is populated entirely by people who want more corporate control over the internet. You think Netflix had it rough with transferring a lot of data, wait until private companies take over the domain name registration.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    32. Re:So this is actually happening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, he doesn't care. He just wants people to believe he cares about things.

  11. 6 of one, a half dozen of the other by Archfeld · · Score: 1
    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:6 of one, a half dozen of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Q_portrait.jpg

    2. Re:6 of one, a half dozen of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Que?

  12. ICANN's shitty stewardship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What have we seen of their stewardship? A cray number of stupid domain names which screech spam and malware, and inflating domain name fees which are disproportionate to their cost of provision: basically rent seeking and profiteering. ICANN is technically non-profit, but it pays out big salaries, nice junkets and favors to industry.

    "Last week, ICANN said Public Technical Identifiers, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, had been incorporated in California, to eventually run the IANA functions under contract from ICAAN, after the transition was complete." So who are "Public Technical Identifiers"? These articles say they were incorporated by ICANN who designed the "transition plan". No body ever willingly gives up power. Is PTI an ICANN facade? http://www.computerworld.com/a... https://www.icann.org/news/ann...

  13. Say bye bye to the internet as we know it by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Once the UN or whomever gets it, they can just ban, delete, remove anything they want. The other countries will now probably have a say so, in what is ON the internet, and what gets taken OFF the internet. FREE flow of things, both good and bad is what makes the internet what it is today. Oh well, it had a good 30 year+ run.

    1. Re:Say bye bye to the internet as we know it by budgenator · · Score: 1

      No they wouldn't ban anything, they would just change the domains TTL (Time To Live) to 1 second and make sure the records were on the "slow server" and it would go into a DNS meltdown and not load.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  14. Internet will survive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The internet will route around the problem. If DNS were to completely go away the only things that would happen is the signal to noise ratio would be vastly improved and some apps will break.

    DNS was only created for human comfort.

    1. Re:Internet will survive by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      ICANN also controls allocation of blocks of IP addresses in addition to DNS. But yeah I agree with your sentiment, if one day they turned evil for some reason, people would find alternatives.

  15. Elections have consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To quote the 44th president of the United States. "Elections have consequences", "I won".

  16. $10 Says... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $10 says that the US and most of the West will *deeply* regret this within a year at most.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:$10 Says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like Obama WANTS to destroy the West. No..wait, HE IS!!!!

      He's the anti-Christ! Just deal.

    2. Re:$10 Says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $20 says that "most of the West" doesn't have a collective opinion on anything.

      Please send my winnings to the Anonymous Coward Protection Fund.

  17. Not good at all. Beginning of the end. by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    Oh fuck this is not good. Really not good. I have no words, didn't hear about this coming. May have more words later after I have time to think about it. But this is not good.

    1. Re:Not good at all. Beginning of the end. by cryptizard · · Score: 2

      This has been planned for over two years. Don't you think if it were really a big deal that you would have heard someone yelling about it by now? It is just bureaucratic shift, nothing will change. Even if ICANN suddenly goes "evil", the internet is too big and too decentralized for it to be "the end" of anything.

    2. Re: Not good at all. Beginning of the end. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet USED TO BE decentralized. Look at its current architecture again. We're going exactly where it was planned.

  18. A terrible mistake by theblkadder · · Score: 1

    That will take time to reveal.

    --
    Earth is a single point of failure.
  19. DNS Alternative Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for a new DNS alternative. It will then get popular and the UN will declare it a human right.

  20. CIA/FBI/NSA ALREADY INSTALLED SPYWARE ON IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is monitored and tracked and profiled at a far more base level than DNS.

    They got you on your OS. Microsoft is full spyware. Debian is now too in Linux. Apple is gay so all you would have is some dick.jpg's. (buttholes too) The US government already has dick.jpg's and butthole.jpg's so you are safe.

    The problem though is IPv6 is not secure. IPv4 blows the layman's mind. IPv6 in logs is ridiculous. Your defaults will not suffice.

  21. CLINTON 2016! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton is a square shooter. Vote Clinton 2016

    1. Re:CLINTON 2016! by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      I don't want to be shot for being unhip and not wearing black turtleneck shirts.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  22. Congress by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

    This part of the article is interesting:

    "Last week, 25 advocacy groups asked Congress to sue to enforce riders it passed on prohibiting spending of taxpayer money on the IANA transition"

    Did Congress get a say-so in letting go of control initially? If riders were added to it, then that tells me that they agreed to handing over control at some point (with conditions). When did this happen?

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  23. Join the club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The plus side of this is that now free speech moderates will feel pressured to support networking ideas that were previously relegated to anarchists and pirates. We need free speech, not kinda sorta free speech, and we need it ASAP. A central authority preventing JUST the speech we don't like is unsustainable.

  24. U.S. giveaways by cevioux · · Score: 1

    First t6eh Panama Canal and now ICANN.

  25. RIP Internet 1970 - 2016 by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    How long before the Europeans try to tell everyone they invented it.