Former NSI CTO Calls ICANN A "World Government"

phr1 writes: "David Holtzman, Chairman and CEO of Opion Inc. and former Chief Technology Officer at Network Solutions Inc, has written this interesting ICB editorial titled 'If we're going to have a world government, I want a revolution first." He argues that 'ICANN has the potential to turn into the first world regulatory body. By beginning to associate top level domains with content usage, they are putting themselves into the position of being the defacto arbiter of content,' and concludes 'I never felt paranoia before. I do now.' It's worth a read."

Slashdot Socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

..Sucks.

In 1832, the insightful Alexis DeToqueville prophetically warned:

"[If I were] to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the [Unites States]. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest - his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not - he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of float happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances - what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

"Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.

"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.

"The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till [this] nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

Down with the Technocrats, Socialist,Economists, Therapists, Egalitarians, Hedonists and Nihilists!

Long live Patriarchy!

Long live Private Property!

Long Live Tradition!

Re:Just names

[chuck]

Time for a blatant plug for OpenNIC [unrated.net]!

Alternate roots are a reality and a necessity. We just gotta figure out how to gain support.

Re:Huh?

[pb]

Hey, cool. You're in NC too?

And you've messed with OpenSRS?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].

Re:Huh?

[pb]

Hahah, cool. I've been here for about five years now. If you're curious, drop me an e-mail, and I'll tell you what's messed up with the Realm now, and why.

Basically the platforms on campus are Solaris, Windows NT, and Linux, and none of them are standardized. It used to be that at least any Unix on the realm mapped to the same sort of locker space, but now it's pretty messed up...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].

Huh?

[pb]

"The first world regulatory body"?

Don't we already have the UN?

Also, since this *is* the Internet we're talking about, shouldn't we be just as worried as everyone else who sets policy for it?

I mean, really, damn those standards boards, making us all do things the same way! It's a plot, I tell you!

I'd take ICANN over NSI any day...

Oh wait. "Former NSI CTO". I Have Been Trolled.

Damn you, Slashdot!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].

What about the ITU

[Zachary Kessin]

Groups like the ITU (International Telegraphy Union) control the world phone system. You need one group to say this country gets this prefix and that one gets that prefix etc. They also control radio stuff.

Because of things like this I can pick up the phone here on my desk and call just about every country in the world (With a few exceptions). There does need be a global standard for root domains so that no mater where where you are in the world when you enter a domain name everyone gets the same domain name.

Of course it should be accountable and have minimal authority, but it needs to be there.

ICANN connection

[hald]

With apologies to School House Rock.

ICANN connection, what's your function?
Hookin' up hubs and routers and switches
ICANN connection, how's that function?
I got three favorite domains
That get most of my job done
Conjunction junction what's their function?
I got com, net n' org, they get you pretty far

SPOKEN:(Com, that's commercial, like a business.
Net - well, that's sort of the connected.
Not group, BUT company. And then there's org, O-R-G.
When you got a group or an organization.
COM, NET, and ORG, they get you pretty far!)

ICANN connection, what's your function?
Hookin' up ISP's and making 'em run right
Buy and sell, sales and support, rise and fall,
Hey that's all
AOL but luser, DSL and broadband,
Losin' your money and a packet or two
He was older but wiser, sad but true!
Boo hoo, hoo hoo, hoo

ICANN connection, what's your function?
Hookin' up two ISP's to one
When you got something like this choice:
Multi-homed or single
Or no choice:
Neither DSL nor cable!
Hey that's terrible!
D/l this or that-, view J-peg or png-
I bet you now I'm too remote as it is!

ICANN connection, what's your function?
Hookin' up routers and switches that bridge like:
Out of the firewall and into the DDOS
He emailed the lug-list
but the spam wouldn't go any farther
(Yeah)
Let's go listen to Napster or
Down load the MP3
You should always say, "thank you"
Or at least say "please".
Conjunction junction what's your function?
Hookin' up words and phrases and clauses
In complex protocols like:

SPOKEN:(through the router, off the bridge,
past the firewall..... Nothing but Net
Where I often encounter a hack and a crack,
And I ask myself as I surf by
Just what they'd say if they could speak,
Although I know that that's an absurd thought.)

ICANN connection, what's your function?
Hookin' up hubs and routers and switches
ICANN connection, hows that function?
I like tyin' up ISP's and makin 'em run right
ICANN connection, what's your function?
I'm gonna get you if you're not very careful...
Yeah yeah, yeah yeah, yeah yeah
ICANN connection
ICANN connection
ICANN connection
ICANN connection
ICANN connection
ICANN connection
Ooh yeah

Hal Duston
[e-mail]

Re:Slashdot Socialism

[Luyseyal]

DeToqueville must've read Rousseau.

The Internet != The World

[Gray]

Jeez.. It's the coolest thing going, but there is a bigger universe.. Not to mention, all I have to do is change a few numbers in my network setup and ICANN is out of the picture.. Nobody's forcing me to use their database..

Re:World Bodies

[TBone]

Troll elsewhere.....

RFC 1591 [faqs.org], written by Mr. John Postel, outlined these guidelines for the allocation of second-level domains under the original 7 top-level domains. The following are cut directly from that RFC...

• COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is, companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains
• EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains
• NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD).
• ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-government organizations may fit here
• INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases
• GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country domains
• MIL - This domain is used by the US military

Any more questions?

World Bodies

[TBone]

And no, Natalie Portman doesn't count....

What about organizations like:

• The UN, who have the power to essentially allow and deny a country governmental access to the rest of the world. How many non-UN countries are there that the rest of the world deals with on a regular basis?
• The World Court in The Hague. Anyone up for a little centralized Crime and Punishment?
• The WTO, who can set trade policy for any country involved with it. And, by association, cut off non-member countries from trading with member countries

If I have to have a centralized body ruling something, then make one ruling the Domain hierarchy. Who cares. As if whether someone is allowed to host naked pictures at http://goat.sex or at http://sexy.kids is going to cause me to lose sleep at night.

And what's wrong with a little content control in the DNS Hierarchy? Move all the porn to .xxx or .sex. Anyone allowed to get to it can, and kids that log on will have their resolvers deny access to them. There's your filter, huzzah. Technically, there is supposed to be content control in the heirarchy right now, except NSI sucked at enforcing anything but the .edu rules. .org was supposed to be only got Non-profits, and .net only for backbone, redistribution providers. If ICANN wants to have the various TLD admins police their domains, then I'm all for it.

...better than NSI

[Just Jeff]

I work on Capitol Hill, and have met with NSI staff several times. They have a one track mind, and that is that THEY own the internet. They really really believe it. They lobby Congress continuously to codify NSI's ownership of the internet name space. They think that they thought it up. They do not understand the government-created-monopoly vs. regulation equation. The NSF funded their entire buildup and then they complain about NSF limiting their registration fees.

I'm no fan of ICANN, but anything is better than NSI.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

World gubment paranoia

[PD]

This guy is blowin wind. He desribes ICANN as a world government with little justification. Treaties? Please.

The article sounds much more like right wing paranoia than a reasoned article. Next thing we all hear from this guy is that ICANN has jurisdiction over America's national parks, because they are using them to train foreign soldiers to be used during the UN occupation of North America.

Re:World gubment paranoia

[PD]

Actually, I'd not call you either left or right wing, as you seem to think.

I'd call you an asshole. An asshole with a strawman.

Re:Seeing top exec's write like this gives me hope

[ansible]

Yeah, I read that paragraph a couple times trying to make sense of it. The first two sentences make sense together. Then after that it can best be described as incoherent.

Maybe his pet monkey got to his computer while he was taking a coffee break...

This article really needed specifics...

[VValdo]

I think a lot of the /. blase response to this article may come from a lack of familiarity with whatever the author is privy to. What exactly kind of dealings are going on? What are the implications?

Most importantly, what can we do about it? Is an alternate to ICANN (new.net?) the answer?
W

Off to icannwatch to read more... There are some FAQs and stuff there.
-------------------

Just names

[Omnifarious]

It's just about a particular naming scheme that we all choose to voluntarily use. I think we really ought to drop it and pick a different one that doesn't lend itself to such centralized control.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and you haven't seen absolute power until you've seen a centralized system you HAVE to use.

Re:This guy does have a point.

[swb]

I think the current framework is good, it's just poorly executed. ICANN needs a constitution of sorts that would mandate sunshine laws, so everyone would know what they were doing and what deals they were striking, as well as to ensure that the ICANN board represents the interests of everyone fairly equally.

I think it's pretty obvious that the TLD system needs oversight, and that oversight should be in the form of a representative board which sets the policies for the TLDs.

I think the better question is, why doesn't ICANN work?

Re:Consider the source

[st. augustine]

I've always been annoyed by this expression [...] A more apropoe expression would be -- First remove the tree from your own eye, before helping someone remove the splinter from theirs.

Hey, just because I've got this beam stuck in my eye doesn't mean I can't help you fish out that mote.

I don't see what difference it makes, frankly. But just to avoid difficulty with the Baseless Metaphors Department, I'll rephrase my statement as follows:

"And if it isn't [the case that Mr. Holtzman is innocent of / and/or opposed to NSI's previous bad behavior], it's a questionable accusation of wrongdoing coming from someone whose ability to assert moral superiority is significantly compromised by his own prior and apparently unrepentant involvement in activities similar to and perhaps more reprehensible than those he is engaged in criticizing."

Better? :)

Consider the source

[st. augustine]

Yes, ICANN has been behaving very badly. But is it any worse than NSI? I don't think so. Remember these stories?

NSI Claims whois Database is Proprietary [slashdot.org]

NSI Modifies whois Agreement [slashdot.org]

Dyson says: 'NSI is stalling' [slashdot.org]

NSI Accused of Cybersquatting [slashdot.org]

...just to name a few. Now, maybe Mr. Holtzman had nothing to do with all that -- heck, maybe he left out of principle when NSI stopped acting like a government contractor and started acting like a would-be monopolist. But if that is the case, there ought to have been a disclaimer somewhere in his comments. And if it isn't, it's the pot calling the kettle black.

The Revolution Has Already Happened

[Royster]

Or perhaps it was a coup.

NSI used to have a monopoly on making policy for the TLDs. They still control the root servers. The Commerce Department seperated policy from administration. Were we better off before? I don't think so.

NSI should either provide the root servers or they should be a registrar.

Please go on.

[cpeterso]

Are you just saying that to be negative?

What does this remind me of ...

[LL]

After Columbus discovered the New World (americas) the then superpowers (Spain, Portugal) argued over how to divy up the goodies (tobacco, colonies, slaves, pagans for "conversion", etc). The religious authority Pope Alexandria VI mediated the dispute by defining the "Line of Demacation" [cite [comptons.com]] where everying to the west of the parallel was claimed by Spain and everything East was allocated to Portugal. Of course, the entrepreneurs of Britain (aka pirates, heretics, and interlopers to the then ruling powers) ignored the treaty and eventually came to dominate America.

Lesson for today ... just as in the past, the market gorillas (AOL-Time/MSNBC/Yahoo) are defining gated communities (cough*portals*cough) and declaring they "own" the customer (actually the life-time stream of transactions of which they hope to gain a not-so-insignificant slice) and will legislate/lobby/lock-out anyone who says otherwise. Reality of life ... the world is not a closed domain and anyone who thinks that declaring a domainname/map/portal is then in the automatic position of granting titles (and not-so-coincidentally levying a tax) is going to be sadly mistaken. Yes, there is a vapor-rush as all the clueless dweebs (dot-cons) try to capture a slice of the perceived pie by staking out a trademark/site/authority. My observation is that people should think like privaters and ignore the silly rules when they make no logical, technical or practical sense. Domain names are *NOT* a scarce resource except for those with limited memories, afterall, if all non-persistent pages are generated by databases+scripts, does it really matter if you link to nfs://130.205.10.50/inode5397935#0x80.txt;uid=2314 ;access=456sdg rather than an easy to recall memnomic? Given a world of near infinite possiblities (noosphere), why should existing entities claim all the action?

However what is needed is recognition of the basic fact in that if you spend time, love and energy on a site (whether open-source or otherwise), it should be protected from misappropriation, misdirection or misuse (whoever writes the code/API/page gets to choose the license). Unfortunately, the juristidctions out there which are not under the thumb of big corporate lobbies interested in the status-quo yet are advanced enough to grant defensive legal protection/arbitration to entering new players not as yet established. There are some intriguing possiblities though, technically if you register a ship under a country and abide by those rules, you should be able to anchor offshore and provide a cache/proxy server that offers the services without being subject to silly restrictions (I believe some people are thinking of using this for the Dutch euthenasia law). Yes, the established commercial interests may consider this "piracy" but if you can demonstrate a need, and offer lower-cost alternatives (cough*Napster = not overpriced CDs*cough) then people will respond.

As someone once said, its easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. There used to be several alternative root domains (AURSC [ah.net]?) ... whatever happened to that concept? If you belive in something strongly enough and are wiling to stick to your priciples (RMS and GPL) then you will always find a way to ultimately voyage to a brave GNU world.

LL

Re:World Bodies

[jmauro]

On UN dues, you point is not technically correct. The US has not paid all of its dues, but does pay a few billion dollars (33% of the UN's total budget) each year. We don't pay a measely 10-15 million dollars out of protest of some projects started by the General Assembly. We don't have veto power in the General Assembly, so we normally get raked over the coals there. Countries such as Japan and Russia owe more money than we do.

Re:there are other tld providers

[MustardMan]

Yeah, but these providers are not supported by default on normal systems. Joe average user wants to sit down at his computer and type www.hotgrits.com, he doesn't want to first go to www.newdomainnameregistrar.com and download a plugin first. The only way things like this would catch on would be internet-wide support of the DNS servers in a big revolt. Not too likely if you ask me.

Re:there are other tld providers

[MustardMan]

that does make a difference... but not a significant one...

once AOL supports them, I will be convinced. As much as AOL irks me, to the common (l)user aol==internet

Re:there are other tld providers

[MustardMan]

from my original post...
The only way things like this would catch on would be internet-wide support of the DNS servers in a big revolt.

So, I agree with you completely. It's gonna take support at the ISP level. As another poster pointed out, @home and earthlink are already supporting some of the new TLD registrars. IF and When AOL and MSN and verizon and a few of the other big players jump on the wagon I can definitely see this taking off. The question is, will the others get on the wagon. For some reason I don't see aol being really quick to accept using the new TLD providers, and without AOL it's gonna be hard to get the unwashed masses to start using those new TLD's

Re:Huh?

[1010011010]

Yeah! In fact, I graduated from NC State, used to work there, and may work there again shortly. :) I'm interviewing for "Systems Programmer II"...

- - - - -

Re:Huh?

[1010011010]

Oh wait. "Former NSI CTO". I Have Been Trolled.

Really. NSI would be pissed about a world government only if it wasn't them. NSI and its current and former lackeys are just upset about having their authority challenged. They like their big, fat monopoly and will run over your grandmother to keep it. The CTO's name wasn't "Montgomery C. Burns," was it?

Just look at how they're "managing" the .us domain, and then think about switching to any other registrar on the planet. Email contact only, their forms don't fill out themselves from WHOIS, and "please allow six weeks for a response." Even if the response is "you forgot a field, try again." Their phone number says all transactions will be conducted via email only, and then hangs up. It would take me less time to drive up there (from N.C.) and kick someone's ass than to wait for their email "process" to work itself out. Lately, I had to call into the regular Verisign/NSI number and hound my way up the chain of command to get a simple change made to a .us domain -- adding a secondary name server.

Contrast that with DomainMonger, where I can make changes in five minutes by myself. And pay less for being able to do so than with an NSI .com/net/org domain. Heck, NSI should turn the .us domain over to OpenSRS/Tucows. It would be better, even with a fee attached to .us domains. Hell, I'd be HAPPY to pay a fee if OpenSRS took it over.



- - - - -

Seeing top exec's write like this gives me hope.

[ErikZ]

Paragraph from article:

I have no problem with authority over critical infrastructure, but there has to be accountability. When I was running the Internic, I was accountable to everyone; investors, my seniors and pretty much anyone who had a domain name and could get through to me. The people involved in this mess by and large seem to have an unhealthily low score on the six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon game. There's an old adage about only giving power to those who don't want it. By that standard, many of the ICANN participants should be acting like the cymbal monkey that got the stuffing kicked out of him by the Eveready bunny.

I've seen better writing from Turing test rejects. Obviously this man has already been "Taken care of." and replaced by a robot. A cheap one.

ErikZ

Content-based filtering?

[Convergence]

Well, we put all porn into .xxx, cause thats where all sex goes.

We put all everything not french into .notfrench, to please the france language purists.

We put everything related to nazi's or WW2 (can't have WW2 without nazi's) into .nazi

We put everything not islamic in .burn-the-infidels, cause that's where it belongs.

We put all the popular US brands (coke, nike, joe camel, micheal Jordan, baywatch) in .imperialistic-nasty-american-culture

We put all the info on human rights abuses in china in .human-rights-in-china

We put all info about contraception into .contraception.

We put all inconvenient facts into .inconvenient-facts.

--

And so forth... After all, for every one of these, someone's made it illegal, and we gotta organize it right into the heirarchial DNS system.. Now, if you can't classify it into one catagory, you can't post it.

Congratulations: We've now given the internet exactly one valid domain: www.internet.sucks

Re:This guy does have a point.

[po_boy]

Go ahead; I think it's applicable in many places. Just don't stop drumming up support for harry Browne, though!

This guy does have a point.

[po_boy]

I have read a lot of posts here discussing alternative TLD's or alternative root nameservers or other similar plans. To me that's about as useful as saying "If you don't like this New World Order, go live on another world."

There is something to be said for the difficulty a person would have to stop using the DNS system as organized or arranged or overseen (or whatever) by ICANN. It may not be as difficult as travelling to another world to set up a new habitat, but it seems to be on the same order of magnitude.

I would love to hear, however, how we could more appropriately manage the DNS system that the vast majority of Internet users know and love. (yeah, I love it; it could probably be better, but I would hate to not have DNS at all). If there were a reasonable plan proposed, I would advocate it because the current system does make me a bit concerned. (I was already paranoid.)

there are other tld providers

[daniell]

There are other tld providers out there of course; there's no 100% control until by some mishap the aforementioned are illegalized. There's new.net [new.net] for example.

- daniel

paranoia o.O

[Cyno]

I never felt paranoia before. I do now.

Well, most of you may not be paranoid, or may not believe that the ICANN has too much control, but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

But we already knew that...

[Greyfox]

Despite all the companies' attempts to make it look like the Internet is a clean orderly environment, it is ultimately still composed and controlled by people who are mutually agreeing to use proposed standards. If you don't like the Icann, set up your own root servers. Or write up your own name resolution systems. There are several groups out there who are doing just that. So what if wall off most of the rest of the Internet in the process? Most of it's crap these days anyway. A commerical-free private collaborative VPN built on top of it would be much more useful anyway.

Re:there are other tld providers

[wannabe]

Support and acceptance lies with the DNS admins. To resolve alternate TLDs one simply needs to add the appropriate entries into named.conf and configure the system to resolve to the correct servers.

To the end user, they type in whatever.alttld and poof, it resolves. No plugin, nothing.

To set up your workstation:
http://www.pacificroot.com/setup_unix_resolv.shtml

TO set up a caching server:

http://www.pacificroot.com/setup_unix_cache.shtm l

That's it. If it's done at the ISP level, the transition slowly opens up the alternate TLDs to all users.

Two things...

[Inti]

1) new.net is old.hat. Why should we prefer it to ICANN? What the hell's the difference? New.net might bring the prices of SLDs down a bit from competition, if it succeeds, (though it is now charging about the same as NSI) but it is fundamentally an inferior solution to the problem than is ICANN. I mean, at least ICANN is to some degree publically accountable (though to a small degree). New.net is ruled by corporate fiat. It could fold at any moment, and feels itself under no obligation to respect existing claims apart from its own. What we really need is democratic namespace governance, where the inclusive namespace is treated not a cash cow to milk, but rather as a global resource to be managed. ICANN made a gesture in this direction by allowing some elected board members. They failed miserably in this attempt, though, by stacking the board with appointees and board-nominated candidates. ICANN now has zero legitimacy as a democratically-governed body, and it would take more humility and faith in the democratic model than Vint Cerf and his cronies can muster to reverse its current trajectory. In short, ICANN has killed itself by arrogance and mismanagement. It is toast. At present, the only democratic alternative is the OpenNIC [unrated.net]. Check it out.

2) The objection that is always brought up when the possibility of alternative root systems is mentioned is that nobody supports them. As someone said a few comments above, "when AOL supports it, then I'll buy it". But I want to make several points. First, for many purposes one does not need every joe sixpack out there to be able to access one's domain. Community sites like /. or k5 have a dedicated, stable body of readers. All they need is for THOSE READERS to be able to resolve their alt domain name. This is very different from ecommerce sites, like amazon, who need universal resolution. Many applications get by fine without universal resolution. Second, it is very easy to operate sites on two domain names at the same time. An example: the JEdit project, and open source programmer's editor, can be seen at both www.jedit.oss [jedit.oss] (.oss is the OpenNIC TLD for open source software projects) and at jedit.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]. It makes no difference. There are many more examples, including the Linux Dreamcast Project [linuxdc.oss], LAngband [langband.oss], TODD [todd.oss], dj in a box [djiab.oss], and more. And since .oss domain names are FREE, why not use both?

In short, for all of you who don't like ICANN, and who don't think new.net is any better, support and use the OpenNIC.

Claim your namespace.

Seems like a lot of hype

[1skywalker1]

Is it just me, or does this sound like a little kid whining about his toy being taken away?

Statements like:
These people are enacting policy, cutting deals with large technology companies and signing things that look suspiciously like treaties with governments and quasi government groups (some of dubious legitimacy).
...should be backed up with a little substance. Does anyone have this stuff on record, or is it just a lot of hot air?

I like to get paranoid and call everything a conspiracy just as much as the next /. reader, but, to me anyway, the evidence is what makes it fun.

--

Re:Not so fast..

[loki2eng]

You forgot: The Council on Foreign relations. The Blinderbergers. The Rockefellers. The A.:A.: The British Royal Family The 'Greys' Elvis Hakim Bey Mordicai the Foul Fang the Unwashed ELF/LDD P2 (ok, you mentioned Vatican, I know) The Golden Dawn E. Howard Hunt (If he shot JFK, you think he won't shoot you?) ;-)

paranoid

[mmmmbeer]

I never felt paranoia before. I do now.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)

Re:World Bodies

[Dahan]

How many non-UN countries are there that the rest of the world deals with on a regular basis?

Well, there's Taiwan, although that depends on whether or not you consider it a country, or just a Chinese province.

On responsibility...

[Infosquawk]

Pretty irresponsible to post something like that.

I disagree that the poster ought to be banned or silenced, but he should have at least had the backbone to post his views openly instead of hiding as an anonymous coward.


OoO

Re:World Bodies

[Glowing Fish]

Switzerland still clings to their neutrality, and is not a member of the UN.

But, on the whole, you are correct, that compared to the UNs meddling (for better or for worse) in world affairs, ICANNs attempts to do whatever it is they are doing is relativly minor.

Paranoia!

[FortKnox]

'I never felt paranoia before. I do now.'

This guy has never played Deus Ex. The Illuminati everywhere determining how your existance will play in their little game of life. They are watching you...

FNORD!!!

Where's the threat

[djp3]

If I have a web page with any service that provides web-hosting, I will have my content in the domain name that the web-hosting company uses. For example, a page describing a non-profit educational organization that is hosted by Yahoo!'s free web-page service will technically be under a .com domain name. As such, no one has succesfully dictated my content in this domain name. This doesn't preclude my being excluded from some other domain name, but it's certainly not a very big problem IMHO. How much do people care if National Public Radio is .org or .com as long as they can get to it?

The WTO

[eean]

The WTO has way more power then the UN. The WTO can decide that our laws (such as cleaner oil or dolphin-safe tuna) are determintal to free trade. While the UN does have some say when it comes to human rights, the WTO is overall a power more organization in my opinon.

The UN doesn't break our soverinty particuraly from the US presceptive because the UN can't do anything unless we let it due to our veto powers; meaning that it doesn't do much.

As far as the NSI, they certainly do get in a lot of people business; which is their job I suppose.

Re:Just names

[metis]

It's just about a particular naming scheme that we all choose to voluntarily use.

domains are just names, SSNs are just numbers, money is just paper, etc. You get the idea. Social reality is made with "just" conventions. If you hit against them hard enough you will find these conventions are as real as concrete.

When network effects are at work, decentralization has a steep price. That is why Europe got the Euro. My guess is that centralization will occur when it saves money. Because, blantly speaking, money rules. It is more realistic to fight for democratic control of centralizations that to fight against centralization.

Re:Seeing top exec's write like this gives me hope

[poot_rootbeer]

> I've seen better writing from Turing test
> rejects.

Why do you say that I've seen better wriring from Turing test rejects?

ICANN should run slash.

[scott1853]

That way we could all flame the ICANN members.

Oh, I forgot. The makers of SlashCode don't even bother to read the responses to the articles they post.

Paranoia

[sulli]

Maybe this should be:

from the here-come-the-black-helicopters dept.

Ya think?

Is it just me...

[Blitherakt!]

... or does this sound like a good translation of a certain game? Here it is, untranslated:

David: ICANN set up us the bomb.
ICANN: All your domains are belong to us.

Sorry... I couldn't resist...

Re:Consider the source

[Nakoruru]

And if it isn't, it's the pot calling the kettle black.

I've always been annoyed by this expression. Just because the pot is black, does not mean that the kettle is not black. i.e., the truth is seperate from the speaker.

A more apropoe expression would be -- First remove the tree from your own eye, before helping someone remove the splinter from theirs.

Re:Consider the source

[Nakoruru]

Smartass ^_^

I'm not sure he was asserting moral superiority, just bitching.

If one believes the cliche "Takes one to know one" then the pot is the best thing to ask if the kettle is black.

Too... many... cliches... must... stop...!

Get rid of domain names.

[achurch]

While that may sound pretty extreme, think about it for a moment: Do we really still need domain names? Ten or even five years ago, domain names were the only way to access most Internet resources outside of IP addresses, but now:

• Nearly every Web page is linked from some index or list or other.
• Web browsers have bookmark lists for a user's frequently visited sites.
• Non-WWW client programs (FTP, SSH, IRC) have "site lists" that let you select a site without having to enter its full address.
• Keyboardless browsing devices (Dreamcasts, cell phones, etc.) are gaining popularity.

So while getting rid of domain names may seem anathema to those of us who have been using the Internet for a while--I know it would take me a while to get used to it--I can't see that it would really cause any significant problems in the long run.

On the contrary, it would solve the myriad problems that have been cropping up recently regarding ownership of domain names and registries. As it is now, this is really not a solvable problem; take the case of, for example, a hypothetical "Jim's Software" in Minnesota and another hypothetical "Jim's Software" in Dallas, both of which want to do business nationwide/worldwide. Which one should get jims-software.com? There is no fair solution to this in the context of domain names, because whatever you do, one of them is going to get a "more visible" name than the other (unless, say, you make them both take jims-software-{1,2}.com, but I won't even try to get into the complexities of that).

Let's take a look at the telephone system for a moment. Just like the Internet, the telephone system can be used for communication between two or more parties anywhere in the world. But the telephone system doesn't have any sort of "domain name"-like system in it. At best, the telephone company will let you pick a number that's easier to remember than others, and even that's only within that particular geographic region; one could see a bit of unfairness here as well, but unlike domain names, telephone numbers are not as closely linked to their owners' identities as domain names are. (A hypothetical 1-800-JIM-SOFT could also be 1-800-LIMP-NET, for example, and if I were Jim I'm not sure I'd be too fond of that phone number in the first place.) And in any case, the advent of speed dial has at least reduced, if not eliminated, the necessity to remember commonly used phone numbers.

So why not do the same thing with the Internet? Scrap domain names, which almost certainly were not designed with an Internet of the size it is today in mind, and use IP addresses as the basic method of contacting a host; let links, bookmarks, site lists, and the like handle the name->address translation, and take domain name registries out of the loop entirely. I seem to recall IPv6 has an address block for geographically-based addresses, so appropriate blocks can be delegated out to countries, which can then assign them individually without having to worry about dealing with ICANN and friends. Moving a host would of course mean its IP address would change, but even that could be dealt with through "forwarding" services such as telephone companies currently provide for phone numbers.

This does leave the problem of how to communicate a host address from one person to another. Personal communcations are easily solved using electronic means: E-mail, IrDA, and such. Advertisements are a bit more difficult, but I can see a couple of solutions to that offhand:

• Register one's site on a search engine or menu, and say "We're registered with XYZ". This approach is actually being used in Japan for cell-phone-oriented web sites.
• Use an "area code" system much like the current telephone system, where the address is divided into an "area code" and "local number" part; then people in the area can reach the host by using the local number only, and the division will make it easier to read/record in any case.

Flames calling me a hypocrite because I have my own domain name will be ignored. (I'd happily go without it if the rest of the domain-name-less system were in place.)

--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL

Re:This guy does have a point.

[GigsVT]

"If you don't like this New World Order, go live on another world." Hey I like that. Hope you don't mind if I steal it and use it to refer to MS. I won't put it in my sig out of respect though. :)
-

Re:Just names

[_dave_the_one_]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and you haven't seen absolute power until you've seen a centralized system you HAVE to use.

And you think you don't have to use ICANN? I know there are other TLD providers out there (and a dozen posts about them here on /) but if you want a domain name the rest of the world can see, you have to go through ICANN.
That looks like a system you have to use to me.
Don't fall into the trap of 'it hasn't happened, so it won't happen' or 'something like that could never happen!' because in both cases, you'll be wrong.

Also a few people have been saying that the UN is really the world's first regulatory body.
There's one big difference between the UN and ICANN: one is worried about national-level politics, and wars, and diplomacy, and laws, and other problems... ICANN is essentially about regulating the information you have access to.

Mod this up! It's important people realise stuff like this, instead of just assuming things won't happen...

The Editorial is Content-Free

[n7lyg]

Like many of ICANN's critics, and like most of the so-called content at ICANN Watch, the referenced editorial is nearly content-free. It goes on at tedious length and actually presents absolutely no factual evidence, only hysterical claims. This simply perpetuates the same ranting that most ICANN critica engage in. A lot of smoke and steam, but where is the fire?

Rant all you want about world government, etc., but please back up your rants with facts. The puff piece makes no citations, only vague allegations. If you are going to complain about something, the least you can do in offer constructive suggestions about how to do it better. He complains about the lack of transparency in ICANN board meetings. I could make the same complaint about VeriSign or NSI board meetings. He complains about WIPO without acknowledging the horrendous mess that NSI made of the entire trademark issue by arbitrarily granting domains to anyone who claimed trademark ownership without even checking whether or not they were lying through their teeth.

Bottom line, when NSI had their nice cozy, private contract with DoC, they were much more abusive about the operation of the DNS than ICANN has ever been. I certainly do not want to see a return to the days of NSI abuse of power, thank you very much. I certainly do not believe the protestations of one of the people most central to the NSI abuse of DNS when he complains about someone else. Go cry in someone else's beer.

Nice rant, but...

[n8ur]

I don't have any love for ICANN, but this article doesn't provide any insight or real information. His background provides initial credibility, but his words undermine it.

Weren't you watching, Dave?

[Bonker]

The 'revolution' you've been waiting for has gone on all around us in the last 10 years and is still in the waging. It's not been fought with guns in the streets and fields, but in the hearts and minds of the entire world.

It's being fought in AOL chatrooms where poor lusers who can't get any other service fight against greed and stupidity. It's going on in the courtrooms where Microsoft is fighting to become one of the largest barons in the new global kingdom and where Napster is fighting for their right to exist at all.

You fire a shot in the 'revolution' every time you write an op-ed piece for an online magazine. It happens every time a Joe Sixpack gets a new computer and discovers that he can get news online from a variety of sources instead of waiting for the Five-o'clock Skews from the Big 4.

Every MP3 and Warez file that is downloaded irrevocably wears away at the existing powerbase of information and publishing that has been built up over four centuries of publishing and information control.

The revolution started without you, Dave. It's a shame, because we could have used you.

Standards Again

[dexter1]

He seems to be complaining, although indirectly, about the same problem that plagues much of computer technology--the lack of a set of unbiased, well-defined standards. I do not think he would have an issue with ICANN (perhaps I am supposing too much here) if they had very specific guidelines that had been agreed upon by much of the internet community (maybe a online vote...I really have no idea how this could be done). Of course, standardization has its own problems, but I do not know if there is a perfect solution.

Government yes, democracy no...

[MikeLRoy]

In many senses ICANN is in fact a world government, as they control an essential service (flow/availablility of information). However, they are neither a democracy or republic - they are a dictatorship, but with multiple dictators (i'm not sure what you'd call this). ICANN could be run as an arm of the UN. That said, the UN is a very inefficient form of government, given that they are only as strong as those who believe in their rules. The UN is top heavy, and accomplishes little.


-MR

Re:there are other tld providers

[leviramsey]

Yeah, but Excite @Home and Earthlink already support the new.net tlds... with enough cajoling from users, other isps wil probably add them...

Re:there are other tld providers

[truthsearch]

Only unlikely for as long as the average user is happy. Joe User is content with the way things are, so why revolt? If enough users see what's happening as censorship, then I think we'd be more likely to see changes.

---

Re:Huh?

[Andux]

Yes, however the UN has no real "power" of its own. All of its influence comes from the voluntary cooperation from its member nations. This is unlike ICANN, which has concrete power of an element of world affairs

Actually, that's not true. There's nothing, legally or physically, stopping the ISPs from dropping ICANN's root in favor of ORSC, AlterNIC, or any of the other "unofficial" root servers. Likewise, there's nothing stopping users from switching on an individual basis. The only problem is that your average Joe Sixpack has no idea how, or why, he should switch.

Re:Huh?

[TheWhiteOtaku]

Don't we already have the UN?

Yes, however the UN has no real "power" of its own. All of its influence comes from the voluntary cooperation from its member nations. This is unlike ICANN, which has concrete power of an element of world affairs, able to do as it pleases without need for cooperation from national governments. Hope this clears things up.

ICANN is rapidly becoming irrelevant

[blair1q]

DNS wouldn't be all that hard to replace. It's just a matter of propagating the upgrade.

ICANN's power is being usurped by alternative TLD systems that are doing just that.

So ICANN is going to be nobody's new world government. Though I bet they love being referred to that way.

--Blair

Re:World Bodies

[Rogerborg]

.org was supposed to be only got Non-profits

Care to support that with an RFC?

NSI

[jdun]

If I have to choose between ICANN and NSI, 10 out of 10 time I go with ICANN. I have more then once got scewed on domain names by NSI customer service in the old days.

This is ridiculous...

[core_dump_0]

This is the lamest thing I have seen. Maybe he is just trying to get you to send money to his former company. Until human life depends entirely on technology, which will never happen, the ICANN will not be a world government.

Re:World Bodies

[Woglet]

I'll take it one point at a time.

The good ol' US of A has not paid it UN dues in some years. Anyone notice them suffering from trade restrictions? me either... The UN also didn't(or failed to) sanction the aggressive actions of various states, who see themselves as the world police, against Iraq and Yugoslavia.

I've yet to see a better set of global restrictions on shitty behaviour than those given by the World Court. Yes, I am "up for" the centralisation of Crime & Punishment.

No argument with point 3, the WTO is entirely in the hands of those who shout the loudest i.e. those with the biggest PR budget.

In closing, centralised world government is _inevitable_, but it must be accountable.
--

alternative DNS root

[nate1138]

What about the smaller alternative DNS root servers?? Sure they can be a pain to use, and there is alot of infighting among them, but the DO provide a less strictly regulated alternative. I wonder, if ICANN gets more power as backed by several large governments, could they shut down these alternative roots?? Would there really be any legal basis for doing so??

Just another rant

[neilest]

I don't think I could trust either of them to tell you the truth.

NSI [zdnet.com] is an evil company for one. Their shit is expensive, it doesn't come with free NS hosting, you can't edit your shit via the web like you can at other registrars.. why it has the success it has today is more than I know.
ICANN [theregister.co.uk] isn't as bad, but you only have too look at the new TLDs they have chosen, which not all of the ICANN staff approved of.

Re:Just another rant

[neilest]

I was refering to the link that I set under NSI on the main post.
The evil part was indicating that NSI had sold their registrants personal information to marketers.. but you're right I should try and choose my wording a bit better.

A little cynical outburst

[wavecentral]

I have to say, I think David is a little upset at what ICANN was able to successfully do against Network Solutions...

Taken from BusinessWeek [businessweek.com] Online Nov 13, 2000

HEADING TO ARBITRATION? Still, NSI has plenty of kinks to iron out. Competitors claim the company holds on to the domain names of clients that have defaulted on payments and then resells them for profit. Wolford refutes these accusations and says NSI returns these names to the public pool for anyone to register with any company. The dispute is likely to end up in arbitration before the multinational domain-name governing body, the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN). Should NSI lose, it could suffer yet another public-relations black eye.

FEROCIOUS BATTLE. With a 43% share of that market, NSI might look like top dog. But don't be fooled. That figure represents a 57% decline from NSI's market share in 1999, when it had a monopoly on top-level domain-name registrations. Since last June, when the monopoly ended, scrappy competitor Register.com has grabbed 16.5% of the market and is growing quickly. NSI is fighting back with new marketing and added services, such as the new multilingual offering. But the fact that NSI and Register are locked in such a ferocious battle comes as a bit of a shock.

A host of other tit for tat brother and sister slapping and crying at each other have always been going on between the two. It has always been a battle between NSI and ICANN.

Having dealt with NSI as a premier business partner, their whole structure was a mess from the get go; pleasing customers was not a priority. And I think that what ICANN is doing is more for protecting the future of registrars and consumers rather than limiting what we can do.

Heck look at what http://www.tv has done already. They've hijacked a Tuvalu's country domain only to make ludicrous profit. And this occured because of a lax process to handle something like this. But hey, if it makes money, it's got to be good. And if there isn't a law saying I can't do it, then @#$! with ya'll. I'm doing it cause I need to find the path of "show me the money"!

Then again... NSI sees this as one more thing they simply can't scale to.