ICANN Bucharest Meeting Comes to a Close 103
ICANN has been meeting in Bucharest this week; as this story goes live (assuming I handled the time zones correctly) they'll be starting their last day of meetings. Highlights of the day will almost certainly include the ICANN Board voting to eliminate the public participation that they were charged with implementing and have fought against for the last several years, and ICANN implementing a domain name tax to fund their operations. ICANN dismisses cynics who complain about taxation without representation. You can view the webcast online, assuming that the volunteers doing it manage to keep it up. If you prefer text, you may like Roessler's weblog or the ICANN blog (highly recommended), which also has many links to news stories, not that the reporters generally understand the issues very well.
hmm.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sponsorships (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the levels from their site -
Three Levels of Sponsorship are available:
Top Level: US$15,000
Second Level: US$10,000
Third Level: US$5,000
My question is who in their right mind is sponsoring them? Normally a sponsorship would give you a little bit of influence, and ICANN seems to do whatever the hell they want. So the question is why would you sponsor these guys?
Re:Sponsorships (Score:2, Insightful)
and the answer is right before the question
Re:ICANN (Score:1)
I wonder if 's new will slashdot to
Eg
I wonder if Microsoft's new security patch will cause uneducated slashdot readers to jump and down loudly on their keyboards?
Obviously you'd have to have some relation between and , but other than that it could be fairly random and still sound like an interesting comment...
Taxation? (Score:2, Interesting)
From ICANN's "About ICANN" page:
Link is here [icann.org]
I have to ask: Why is a non-profit organization levying taxes? What's next? Make-a-wish foundation taxes terminally ill patients who haven't progressed very far in their illnesses to pay for trips to Disneyland for those kids who are very very sick? It's absurd!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Taxation? (Score:1)
Re:Taxation? (Score:1)
Re:Taxation? (Score:2)
Non-profit does not equal no income. It means they must balance their income with their outgoings. Given that their job it to coordinate/manage IP & DNS it is eminently sensible that a part of the money you pay to register a domain goes to them. This is a non-issue: they're simply trying to rationalise how they bill the registrars.
There are serious problems with ICANN (most notably their secrecy, lack of accountability, and their 'closed shop' policies) - but this isn't one of them.
Re:Taxation? (Score:2)
He used to own freeside ISP in Austin, Texas before he sold out. I had the misfortune of having professional contact with him, after my company bought his. He used PROFANITY on an OFFICIAL COMPANY MAILING LIST when one of his employees (not co-worker, he was very quick to point out the distinction) made a bonehead configuration error on a router which required a trip to the office to sort out. His solution to pretty much any problem was "Install a FreeBSD box"...despite the fact that no company staff but himself had any kind of BSD experience at all.
When I hear of ICANN's current-day problems, I just think..."Jeremy Porter", and it all becomes crystal-clear.
Careful if you have headphones on! (Score:3, Informative)
The audio in the realaudio stream is getting really flakey, switching between stereo and mono, but much worse - it occasionally just stops with a loud *pop*, which is actually painful when you have headphones on, not to mention the microphone feedback. Download the show afterward if you have headphones.
Ack - my ears!
:^)
Ryan Fenton
This is the last straw (Score:5, Insightful)
"Come up with acceptable terms for elections, run the elections and step down."
and they deliberate for a few years and say
"Nope, no elections, sorry. Impractical. Instead, we're going to have an enlightened dictatorship where those qualified to make decisions appoint your rulers. It's better. Democracy is a noble experiment, but doomed to fail."
what do you do?
You fire the interim government; you do so with dispatch! They've violated their charter - they've lost all legitimacy. End of story.
Personally, I'd just as soon keep the five elected members we have, since they have the legitimacy which the rest of the board lacks.
Revolution? (Score:3, Interesting)
Usually it takes extreme circumstances-- If the dictatorship becomes too oppressive, sooner or later they will be overthrown.
What would it take to overthrow ICANN? I think it would be a tremendous number of egregious crimes that affect a majority of Internet users.
What would an ICANN revolution look like? I don't know. A non-violent overthrow would need a viable replacement, and so far Alternet [alternet.org] and new.net [new.net] don't seem to be getting the traction they need.
Perhaps someone needs to come up with a whole new idea in naming and identifying computers and systems that is technically and practally superior to the current system-- something so compelling that people will choose to use it over ICANN.
I'd be interested in reading suggestions-- what would it take to overthrow ICANN? The Internet is so good at routing around central authorities. So how to bring the power back to the people?
W
Re:Revolution? (Score:2)
Probably. But a lot of revolutions also end up with dictatorships. The easiest way for ICANN to be overthrown is for Microsoft to bundle an alternative system in their next OS
Re:Revolution? (Score:1)
Eh, (Score:2)
Also, why non-violent over-throw? I say, lets just kill everyone at ICANN and be done with it.
(I'm just kidding, of course)
Re:Revolution? (Score:2)
They serve at our sufference.
Once we've handed over the reigns of root to them, you might claim that only the international community has the power to fire them. At the moment, however, the US government can scrap them and reabsorb their function into the commerce department at any time.
I'm not a Republican - when Sen. what's his name first proposed doing that I thought it was more americocentric bullshit. However, I've come 'round. ICANN is willfully disobeying it's mandate - it should be dissolved and the commerce department should create a new board that will actually carry out the democratic function.
Re:Revolution? (Score:1)
Re:Revolution? (Score:2)
http://www.opennic.org is another good place.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
make that unregulated Monopoly (Score:1)
There is nothing wrong with a monopoly, and in situations where there exists what econominists call a natural monopoly, a monopoly is better. Provided that its regulated of course.
All things consitered, if it takes the US congress another 5 years before it pulls the plug on ICANN, or implements an effective regulatory body, then the US congress is acting relativly fast.
About the tax (Score:2, Insightful)
I lost the video feed just as Stuart Lynn was saying that the 25 cent per domain name fee wasn't a tax. I agree. That is rhetoric. Someone wrote to me today and asked why I thought this wasn't a tax. I wrote back: "It's a fee for services. It's like going into McDonalds, ordering french fries, and then calling the price of the fries 'a french fry tax.' ICANN coordinates the management of the domain name system. If you operate a registry or registrar, you get a direct benefit from that. Likewise, if you're a domain name registrant."
Tax:
a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
b: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
It IS a tax but it's also a justified one. Face it, someone should have to help out in the cost and i doubt anyone would if it wasn't manitory. Hell, would you pay income tax if on the form was a checkbox for 'Do you want to help fund your gov? Y/n.'
Taxation without representation (Score:5, Insightful)
They need to be reined in BEFORE they get out of hand. "No taxation without representation" means just that, NO taxation. It isn't "No taxation without representation unless, like, it's for a good cause and it's justified, and besides no one would help out if it wasn't mandatory..."
Re:Taxation without representation (Score:2, Informative)
Taxation without representation doesn't really apply here because you are repesented as the customer. It would be like calling the price of a bigmac a tax and then demanding a vote to set the price on it. If BurgerKing up'd the price of the bigmac to $500.00 people would just goto TacoBell or another fast food place and BurgerKing would be doomed. The only thing that changes in the world of icann/rootservers is that you don't see the alternatives placed right next to ICANN with bright signs saying "EAT HERE". And unless your a network admin you shouldn't care. After all, thats who gives you the name servers you use. (Note: yes, i know, you can change the nameservers you use blah blah blah resolv.conf blah blah. Just keep in mine the gerneral public doesn't really know or, to a degree, care to change their settings.)
In short ICANN is a service and you pay service tax. Should we get a say in the tax's price? Sure and we do, everytime we buy a domainname from them.
RESOLVE HERE [unrated.net]
Re:Taxation without representation (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't like how they're run either - but I couldn't care less how they bill the registrars (which is all this is).
[OT]: "No taxation without representation". Is this just a famous quote, or actually part of the US constitution? If it is, do children, criminals, madmen, and foreigners working in the US really not pay tax?
Re:Taxation without representation (Score:1)
And somewhat hipocritical if you consiter the current state of affairs vis a vis Puerto Rico.
Re:Taxation without representation (Score:1)
That's right, as a Territory, they're exempt from income tax. Of course, their ignorant politicians would like nothing better than to mess up the U.S. flag, as well as introduce their constituents to the joys of income tax, in return for three insignificant seats in the U.S. Congress.
Insignificant to everyone, of course, but the persons who would benefit from the office.
Re:Taxation without representation (Score:1)
I rather doubt you can apply the "lessons of Munich" to an Internet naming association, 65 years after the fact.
So what's you point? D.C residents are taxed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I a U.S. Citizen? Yes, born and raised. Taxation without representation... what's new?
Dangerous Precedent? (Score:1)
Gio
Vote against the WLS! (Score:4, Informative)
The proposal has the potential to be a massive money-earner for both Verisign and Snapnames, at the expense of consumers.
Under the proposal, people will be able to "subscribe" to a waiting list a bit like Snapname's current service (www.snapnames.com). Unfortunately, under the scheme, subscriptions are likely to cost US$40-70 *PER YEAR*. Yes, that means if a domain name doesn't expire for 10 years, you'll be paying, say, US$50 every year just for the chance of owning it. This contrasts with other expiring-name services like www.namewinner.com that only charge you in the event that you get the name. One aim of the proposal is to address the massive speculation that occurs for expiring domain names. However, a WLS would just create speculation in WLS subscriptions!
I only wish I could say.... (Score:1)
Time to unplug ICANN's money (Score:5, Interesting)
ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC are getting pissed at them, and have publically suggested that ICANN restrict its role to whatever it is they're supposed to be doing and leave tech admin to organizations capable of doing it. <p?Their budget is spiraling and for that, we get the same kind of root administration we've been getting from Verisign and probably could get from another vendor with better results and for a fraction of the cost.
Their only real products appears to be hot air and bullshit.
Whether you're a US taxpayer or you're a domain name holder anywhere in the world... we're paying for this, what the hell are we getting out of this?
A domain name dispute resolution process universally regarded as unfair outside the Fortune 500? It would be more cost effective and equally fair to require disputants to disclose their net worths and award the domain to the party with the greater net worth.
It's time for some Congressman to carry a bill to unplug their funding... and resume contracting with Verisign to run the root via NSF pending figuring out a better solution.
Taxation of Trade Routes (Score:1, Funny)
Where the MONEY is going (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do ICANN stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have ICANN looked for other Law firms?
Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?
A quote from a Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
Karls platform [cavebear.com].
***End quote.
In a good two month period, October and November 2000, they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.
ICANN minutes [icann.org].
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue [jonesday.com].
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone [uspto.gov] (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.
They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.
Re:Where the MONEY is going (Score:2)
Why am I picturing a darkened room in which a goat is strangled with a SCSI cable? :D
No, wait, how about 13 lawyers and corporate executives, naked and dancing widdershins around a burning Tux plushie? Then they all ritually spit on a drop of Jon Postel's blood. And, having completed the dark ritual, they shake hands, put their suits back on, and do lunch.
P2P as an ICANN replacement (Score:1, Interesting)
It would be cool if we could all run a tiny server that let's us name our computers the way we like and lets people see a directory of computers connected to each other. This would not be suitable for existing browsers but would be cool for new-generation P2P services.
Any ideas/comments?
Okay, we go to the lawmakers, but with what? (Score:2, Informative)
Public elections unfeasible my ass (Score:2)
1. ICANN had public elections.
2. They worked pretty damn well. Probably better than the previous US election for President. Don't recall 15 recounts, looking at chads, divits, partial penetration, etc.
3. Not only did the elections work, but they produced the "right" results. I'm referring here to Karl Auerbach and Andy Mueller-Maguhn being elected. They didn't work perfectly everywhere -- especially Africa -- and ICANN's jumped on that as an excuse to do away with them; i.e., "because so few people voted in Africa, we have to do away with elections and just control everything ourselves -- buahahahaha." Lets look at the results of these elections (winners marked by *):
AFRICA:
Calvin Browne 30
Alan Levin 33
**Nii Quaynor 67**
TOTAL 130
ASIA/AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC:
Johannes Chiang 935
Lulin Gao 1,750
**Masanobu Katoh 13,913**
Hongjie Li 749
Sureswaran Ramadas 398
TOTAL 17,745
EUROPE:
Maria Livanos Cattaui 514
Alf Hansen 629
Jeanette Hofmann
**Andy Mueller-Maguhn 5,948**
Olivier Muron 544
Oliver Popov 389
Winfried Schueller 990
TOTAL 11,309
LATIN AMERICA AND CARRIBEAN:
**Ivan Moura Campos 946**
Raul Echeberria 141
Claudio Silva Menezes 157
Aluisio S. Nunes 79
Patricio Poblete 79
TOTAL 1,402
AMERICA: (of course everything in the US is complicated, so there were 6 stages of voting; I'll just summarize the first stage, which is pretty much representative)
Karl Auerbach 1,074
Lyman Chapin 127
Donald Langenberg 83
Lawrence Lessig 725
Harris Miller 179
Barbara Simons 771
Emerson Tiller 490
TOTAL 3,449
Gee, I don't see how these elections didn't work. Please fill me in on that one. I don't know anything about these guys other than Auerbach*, Lessig, and Mueller-Maguhn*, but it seems like it worked fine to me. Great guys got elected -- Auerbach and Mueller-Maguhn. Too bad the US couldn't be represented twice, b/c Lessig would've done well. Anyways, it works fine. Yes, very few people voted in Africa and other poor regions: duh, most of them don't have the internet. Yes, few people (relatively speaking) voted in the rich nations: duh, even in presidential elections, turnout is normally low.
Its better having an election with low turnout than no elections at all, or than having an election with high turnout of voters who don't know what the fuck is going on.
What ICANN's really bitching about is that the elections didn't go THEIR way. Hillary Rosen, Jack Valentini, or Bill Gates didn't get elected as ICANN members -- that's their gripe.