ccTLDs Revolt Against ICANN

person-0.9a writes: "It seems that the ccTLD organization is very unhappy with how little they get from ICANN. They're so unhappy in fact that the ccTLD's have removed themselves from ICANN. Check out this article on zdnet for the full story."

just a thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing it's that "taxation without representation" thing again.

Later That Day...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bully got his gang together and jumps David from behind. While his pals hold him down, Bully beats David senseless. A few kicks to finish it off and David is left for dead.

It ended badly for David because "no one" saw it.

When you must fight, make sure your opponent can not get back up. Assuming your winning, and basically almost done winning, after that last hit to the gut, hit the bridge of the nose. Death or paralysis can lessen the chance of retribution, expecially if you have no official formal training, in which case its a "a freak chance." They call you a freak, take a chance ;)

Having actually read the story...

[Anonymous Coward]

ahh...an issue of "taxation without representation". The ccTLD's are the operators of ALL the international domains (.uk, .fr, etc..). Does that not also include .us? Did .us seperate from the mother commerce agency?? Are we in revolt against ourselves?

Cutting off Mr. Nose to spite Mr. Face

[alewando]

This is the worst thing they could do, because it completely removes any sort of leverage the ccTLDs could have over ICANN. There's no rational reason for it.

Here's an analogy: look at our trade relationship with China, for example. Bush is extending China's normal-trade status for another month precisely because revoking it would prevent the sort of constructive cooperation and criticism the US can retain over China's human-rights atrocities with the maintaining of trade. The reason China's stopped executing its disidents is because of this sort of economic persuasion. Money and thuggery intrinsically oppose each other.

If the ccTLDs want to change ICANN, then they must try to do so from within through the proper channels. That's the only way real change ever was made in this world.

ICANN, DNSO, and it's about time anyway

[TBone]

The ccTLD's are protesting ICANN only as far as ICANN is thie organization that is supposed to support their technical decisions. In actuality, it's the DNSO and the heirarchy within ICANN that is being protested.

I was thinking about this the other day, and was wondering when, if at all, the ccTLD people were going to come out for, against, or neutral in the ICANN problems of late. While this isn't a response against the TLD policies, it is a response against the organization in general, and if the ccTLD's were to take their business elsewhere (i.e., New.Net), it could cause serious problems for ICANN's legitimacy as the "One True Root", since New.Net would also be hosting about 250 legitimate TLD's.

And on a side note, what's the big deal ICANN seems to have about adding a whole bunch of TLD's anyway? IIRC, a large percentage of the ccTLD's were added within months of each other, and it doesn't seem that the net has blown up yet. Why is adding 10 more gTLD's going to cause problems?

As if what we have wasn't bad enough already...

[dido]

The ccTLD for my own country (.ph) is itself being torn by extremely harsh in-fighting. There have been calls for redelegation, and violent flamewars on a yahoogroups mailing list (dotph-issues) created to address this issue. I doubt if Joel Disini, the head of DotPH Inc. [domains.ph] will bother too much with this issue. He's already getting loads of flak from the local Internet scene because he is perceived to have abused his authority as domain administrator, by allegedly giving preferential treatment to the ISP he owns, among other things. If the DNSO and ICANN are also embroiled in their own internal conflict, it may be unlikely that our issues with our own ccTLD administrator will be resolved as expeditiously as we hope.

THE ICANN MOVIE

[GuNgA-DiN]

THE ICANN MOVIE:

http://www.paradigm.nu/icann [paradigm.nu]

ICANN should take some advice from Princess Leah: "the tighter you squeeze your grip, ICANN,the more CCtlds will slip through your fingers"

Confusing!!!

[Hugonz]

When I first read the headline, I thought ccTLD referred to the .cc TLD (which is Coco Island, a convenience NIc that has been issuing domains for a while now).

The fact that the .cc TLD NIC is breaking with ICANN is really not much important. But the WHOLE country code TLDs disagreeing is really serious.

Perhaps Michael could make the headline clearer and get the discussion going.

Hugo

-- Never forget this is Slashdot and many people just don't read the article

Re:Prediction

[ScumBiker]

Pretty soon we'll have some sort of rebel ICANN challenging the original

Frankly, I look forward to something like that. To date, ICANN has been nothing more than a closed organization, making decisions that directly effect all internet users, without listening to the community. I say disband the ICANN and form a new committee, based on an IRC like forum. Consensus could be pretty easliy found in such a manner and the overall good of the community would occur.



Dive Gear [divingdeals.com]

I've heard this before....

[Chairboy]

zdNet: "It is said that the ccTLDs are revolting."
ICANN: "You said it! They stink on ice!"

Irony can be pretty ironic...

[kindbud]

This is nothing less than the equivalent of the Boston Tea Party for the DNS.

How ironic that it is Britain and all the other countries that are revolting against the US-dominated ICANN tax authority, for the same reason that the colonists dumped England's tea shipments into the harbor.

Irony can be pretty ironic, don't you think?

Re:Having actually read the story...

[Arker]

ahh...an issue of "taxation without representation". The ccTLD's are the operators of ALL the international domains (.uk, .fr, etc..). Does that not also include .us? Did .us seperate from the mother commerce agency?? Are we in revolt against ourselves?

Yes, .us is a ccTLD. However, the headline is wrong, sort of... they did not withdraw from ICANN. They withdrew from DNSO, a "support organisation" within ICANN, a protest move. They haven't left ICANN yet, but they are saying very loudly that they have grievances and they will not be ignored.

If they did leave ICANN, they would take one third of total funding (according to the article at least.) This gives them a pretty big stick and they are signalling their willingness to use it. Seems no one is happy with ICANN these days. Even the leasee of .com and .net may be upset, if the ccTLDs and some of the community people that are working on alternative DNS wind up getting together and making .com and .net obsolete. Not a bad idea.

"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."

Re:I'd love to read the article but...

[epcraig]

So revert to lynx, terminal type is legible to these eyes.

Re:A mini-UN in the making

[Trepalium]

I can list one way to fix ICANN -- throw out the remaining original members. They finished their initial task of getting the @Large members in there, it's time for them to step back and let the final four members be elected (perhaps by by giving votes to ICANN sponsors this time against those four seats). I think that would be an adequate blend -- 5 voted by internet users worldwide, and 4 voted by those who pay the money to keep ICANN running. Add to this, some kind of charter that prevents the kind of abuse that's going on right now by the old 4 members, and you might end up with a functional body for these matters.

A mini-UN in the making

[ehack]

Sounds like ICANN is going the way of the UN. Ineffective, unresponsive and factionalised. And likewise losing what little claim to moral authority it still has :(

The revolt is NOT against ICANN

[Lextext]

The intro blurb is wrong. The revolt is not against ICANN, but against the structure of representation within ICANN. The ccTLDs voted to leave the Domain Name Supporting Organization, not ICANN itself. In fact, what they are looking for is increased representation on the ICANN Board, not to leave the organization altogether. -- Bret

Journalism today;

[AMuse]

Apparently as confused as ICANN itself;

appointed to the ICANN board when it was created nearly more than two years ago.


------------------------------------------------ --

Prediction

[evilviper]

Pretty soon we'll have some sort of rebel ICANN challenging the original.

---=-=-=-=-=-=---

Re:Prediction

[evilviper]

Now if people could convice more sysadmins to use the DNS servers of OpenNIC (as well as network solution's) the transition could be transparent to most people, and there'd simply be no more reason to stick with the traditional.

Unfortunately, not enough people are speaking up, and few if any ISPs are doing this.

---=-=-=-=-=-=---

Its all fun and games untill ...

[Faux_Pseudo]

Some one looses a lobbyist.

ICANN is conducting a study about whether general Internet users, as opposed to those that represent business or another constituency, should have seats on the board.

And in other news the US Congress has announced that they will no longer be accepting bribes. This story can be found at file:///dev/null

Re:Cutting off Mr. Nose to spite Mr. Face

[buss_error]

Vint Cerf is, IMO, the greatest de-stabilizing force facing the Internet today.

On 2001/02/08, he testified before the House committee on Energy and Commerce subcommittee of Telecommunications. He said:

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to describe the efforts of ICANN to introduce additional competition into the Internet name space, while at the same time prudently protecting against possible disruption of this extremely important global resource for communications and commerce.

Just how is it introducing additional competition by giving Verisign a 10 year monopoly on .com .net I just don't know. Just how does he plan to protect against possible disruption of the internet by introducing a confilcting TLD (.biz) I don't know. He said further:

The basic message I would like to leave with you today is that ICANN is functioning well, especially for such a young organization with such a difficult job.

It functions so well, in fact, that the second largest ccTLD just left in disgust. Going a bit deeper:

The recent action to introduce seven new Top Level Domains (TLDs) into the DNS will double the number of global TLDs and at the same time will not, we believe, create serious risks of destabilizing the Internet -- something I know none of us wants to see. The fact that ICANN, in just over a year, has been able to generate global consensus on this issue -- which has been fiercely debated for most of the last decade -- is a testament to ICANN's potential to effectively administer the limited but important aspects of the DNS that are its only responsibility.

On destablize the DNS system by introducing a conflicting TLD? I want what he's smoking! As for creating a global consensus, another opium pipe dream. Do you seriously think that the people with .biz names agreeded to have them taken away? If you do, I want what YOU are smoking. As for the "effective administer" et seq. remark, only if you ignore those that disagree with you, Dr. Cerf.

To give him some of his due, Dr. Cerf's job isn't an easy one. Perhaps this IS the best that can be done in a very complex and contensious business. I can't help but feel that it COULD be better, and possibly WOULD be better with someone else at the helm. However, that isn't likely to happen.

Playground Bullies

[Ho-Lee-Cow!]

I remember a fight between two kids on the playground. One was the archetypical bully and the other was a kid who was pint sized and who honestly looked like he'd break if you looked at him the wrong way. Well, as things went, the bully and his gang of twits surrounded the kid and as things erupted, the smaller boy used a few moves that his dad, the Marine, had taught him. Ended badly for the bully, because -everyone- saw it.

High profile attacks on the might is right approach of ICANN can't be bad for the internet in the long run. Government isn't going to contain it.

Who's inviting the cc's to join the other party?

[wytcld]

If any significant portion of them aligned with - or set up their own - alternate root scheme, that would be the end of the ICANN monopoly. Those with alternatives should be actively recruiting potential defectors.

Somebody had to make a stand

[R_V_Winkle]

If one third of the operating income walks away from the spectators seats and into a crucial segment of the internet domain routing structure with its own service to fulfill then and IMHO only then will we see the Commerce Department become involved and require the almighty icann to accept public standards and play nice.

I think this is a good thing. That way no single frame of mind will have total sway over how we settle disputes for names and what it costs to have a presence.

Suddenly ICANN doesn't seem as important anymore when they are being instructed by the commerce department to cooperate in the intrest of the greater good.

R_V_Winkle

Re:The game's afoot

[autocracy]

There is no cabal

So you're a karma whore, eh? For the right price, I'll be a karma pimp...

Why this actually matters

[autocracy]

When major domains break off, people notice - the people that do stuff.

One of four things can happen right now:

1. Chaos: Everybody follows suit, but in different directions. We end up with 50 different clusters of TLDs all with their own agendas. (visit us at www.server.com on DNS net 7!)
2. Order: We get together and everything works to the benefit of the internet in general (ICANN benefits nobody - not even corps!)
3. Bad Order: We just get another ICANN.
4. Nothing: Sorry Slashdot, it happens sometimes - nothing happening that is...

Anybody venture to guess which one it will be?

So you're a karma whore, eh? For the right price, I'll be a karma pimp...

FInally!

[1alpha7]

I thought they would never get around to noticing they're getting reamed w/o vaseline. ICANN is never really going to get out of bed with Network Solutions. The only "Solution" will be ICANN marching alone..

1Alpha7

Re:Cutting off Mr. Nose to spite Mr. Face

[1alpha7]

It completely removes any sort of leverage the ccTLDs could have over ICANN.

You are assuming that ICANN is amenable to change from within. If ICANN becomes irrelevant to the ccTLDs due to these maneuverings, then they have no more problem.

1Alpha7

ICANN abuse of power

[Garry Anderson]

ICANN are abusing their powers. Amongst other abuses, they ignore Articles of Incorporation.

1. They do not work for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole - they put big business first.

2. They do not conform with relevant principles of international law - they ACTUALLY PROMOTE trademark abuse of power with UDRP. They could easily end this and 'consumer confussion'.

3. They conduct meetings in secret.

They force not-for-profit ccTLDs, like Nominet UK, to pay high charges. They are also trying to force UDRP process onto them.

Most of the current problems are due to the authorities perverted and twisted sense of protectionism towards big business trademarks.

Though they SAY that they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet - this is a barefaced LIE.

Only those unable to progress ideas through to conclusion would believe them.

They only give certain trademarks an illegal dominant position and create a 'cash cow' for their friends in the legal profession.

This is demonstrably true and was the obvious intention.

Trademarks 'raison d'être'. To use Attorneys words, "The basic tenet of trademark law is to protect consumers and trademark owners from confusion in the marketplace". - "That will be $2,000 please", they say, with big greedy smile on face.

They have always known the solution to these problems - name.class.country.reg

The .reg is instead of trademark symbol - this then acts as certificate of authentication and directory.

This does not stop business using other domains for advertising e.g. current dot com

During discussions with the U.S. Government, they have been unable deny my assertions.

By using the DNS as a fatally flawed trademark system - they abridge free speech - so violating the First Amendment.

Please visit my site WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk].

From ICANN Articles of Incorporation:

4. The Corporation shall operate ***for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole***, carrying out its activities in ***conformity with relevant principles of international law*** and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through ***open and transparent processes*** that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations.

ccTLDs are the best

[customs]

I'm glad to see them sticking up for their rights in the scheme of things. I myself own two ccTLD domains, adama.am and customs114.tv. I which nothing but the best to them all.

Re:Not in the making, It's done.

[SlippyToad]

The only possible sanity would have to come from congress and bush, fat chance there. So basicly the people have lost control over DNS

Boy, I hope I'm never that apathetic. The reason ICANN is so absurd is that we really don't have to cotton to them in order to have control of DNS. The choice of DNS servers to use is up to us, the users. If a critical mass is reached that does not agree with ICANN, they will be out of business. The possibility of that occurring increases with each abuse perpetrated in ICANN's name.

Re:Cutting off Mr. Nose to spite Mr. Face

[sparcv9]

This is the worst thing they could do, because it completely removes any sort of leverage the ccTLDs could have over ICANN. There's no rational reason for it.

Removes leverage? Maybe you missed several statements in the article that mention the fact that the ccTLD organizations provide one-third of the funding for ICANN?

The game's afoot

[imipak]

Cry havoc! & let slip the dogs of war... <gratuitious quotation/ >

Finally, we'll get to find out whether the cabal really exist!
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"

Re:Irony can be pretty ironic...

[budgenator]

Actualy the Tea when into the harbbor because a few rich colonialists have a vast fortune invested into tea aready in the warehouses and didn't want a glut of tea (that King George was pushing on to us simpley to collect the Stamp Tax) to diminish their investment. When people at large start getting access to new DNS services like OpenNIC and others, then ICANN will start feeling like the colonials watching their fortune being diminished.

There is no reason to place such a high value on having a dotCOM name anyways; doesn't help with search engines, doesn't make links any easier to follow, all it does is makes it a little easier to catch six-pack Joe typing in the wrong URL. It does seem to make a site look more legit to the uninformed user, but the typical shoddy customer service kills that pretty quick. Besides Six-Pack Joe is affraid to use his credit card on the net anyways

Summary, corrections, and history

[AnotherBlackHat]

Quick summary of the article:

A working group of the country-code top level domains (ccTLDs), voted unanimously to pull out of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO)

They've been talking for months and aren't happy.
The ccTLD supply 1/3 of ICANNs funding.
ICANN has two other supporting organizations.
Each supporting organization gets three seats on ICANN's 19-member board.

(No, the article does not mention how many members there are in the working group, or if by pulling out they remove a full 1/3 of ICANN's funding or only a proportionate share.)

Corrections:

It would be more correct to say "They've been talking for years", not months.
There are 18 seats on ICANN, not 19. In theory, 9 are elected by the three supporting agencies, and 9 elected by the internet "at large" but in reality, 6 are elected "support" seats (none of which are the ccTLD seats) and 4 elected "at large" seats. The rest are held by legacy appointees.

Some history on this:

ICANN was formed in 1998, essentially by the US, who appointed 9 people to the board at that time.
'Round about September 1999, 3 of the seats were supposed to have been filled by elections of the ccTLDs, but they didn't elect them. ICANN claims that they "decided to defer" the election. The ccTLD's claim they were not allowed to participate in this "decision." IOW, (if you believe them) they were defrauded of their three promised seats in 1999. It's hard to know who to believe in this, but I note that the seats are still aren't held by ccTLD's elected members. I think it's extremely unlikely that the amendments to the ICANN bylaws [icann.org] would have passed had those seats been filled by the ccTLDs.
Among other changes, the amendments have allowed 5 of the legacy appointees to remain without contest. Without the changes, they would have had to win an election to remain seated, and I for one, believe they wouldn't win.

Not in the making, It's done.

[glrotate]

ICANN is owned. What's the point in waving your arms about it at this point. The only possible sanity would have to come from congress and bush, fat chance there. So basicly the people have lost control over DNS. Move on to the next injustice.

It won't last...

[number one duck]

... unless these rebels blow up ICANN's Death Star!

its unfortunate

[stinkor]

They're not revolting vs. the centralization and assumption of power by ICANN, they just want a piece of it themselves.

Look; see what monkeys we are. Such is man.

OpenNIC

[SlickMickTrick]

Perhaps its time more people focused on ideas like OpenNIC [unrated.net].

why

[zoombah]

recently there have been many articles on slashdot about how the TLD and domain system is (corporately) falling apart. Why the hell would something like this happen? Great, I get to control if .biz or .info are implemented or not. Unless you have a role like that of the InterNIC's (which directly leads to monopolistic profit), then there is no reason for stuff like this to occur.