ICANN Ditches Public Participation 204
Ziest writes "The AP is reporting that ICANN, who is meeting in Shanghai, has voted to eliminate direct elections to its board of directors." See also does-not-exist.org. It's not as if this is recent change -- just the last step in a long process.
How can they get away with this. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How can they get away with this. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How can they get away with this. (Score:2)
Re:How can they get away with this. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are plenty of bodies like ICANN that are appointed indirectly. The problem with ICANN is that first they don't appear to want to be accountable to anyone at all and second their decisions appear to be utterly clueless to every consituency they might be attempting to please.
One might think that they would work out a somewhat more cluefull approach to funding than to simply try to shake down the country TLDs for huge sums. ICANN has no credible threat to back its demands. If they drop .uk from the root the root moves for sure.
In fact the whole business about who controls the DNS really comes down to the DNS root server operators and in particular the ones with the serious servers for the task. ICANN do not own the IP addresses, the root server operators do.
Re:How can they get away with this. (Score:1)
ICANN has officially become IR-relevant ! (Score:2)
As an ordinary member (?) of ICANN, I am sad to say that ICANN has officially voted itself out of any relevance !
ICANN was started as an organization representing the Net users. Now, it has become just another word that meant nothing.
Can anyone explain why this is significant? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (Score:5, Informative)
When does this get relevant? Well, when somebody disagrees about who owns a domain. It's nice that there are standard procedures for disputing these things. And remember when it used to cost some ungodly amount per year to register domains? Then along came OpenSRS and lots of registrars that pushed prices down, opening the web up to further colonization. This had to be approved and initiated by ICANN. The problem? ICANN already operates essentially without answering to any government or external authority, and the "citizens" of the Internet have no real voice in what goes on at ICANN. What if ICANN decides to go back to granting register.com a monopoly on new domain registrations? Well, they won't because the backlash would be huge, I imagine, but I am trying to give an example of what they theoretically could do.
Also little issues like the transition to IPv6 are governed to some extent by the ICANN, and that matters too - I for one would like my toaster and household appliances to have IP addresses in my frigging lifetime. I'm sure you can find more things the ICANN is responsible for at their website. Or do a Google search. Then tell me if you think maybe the users of the Internet who ultimately pay for its growth and the taxpayers of the nations that set up the original infrastructure for its growth ought to have some say in how it is managed.
Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (Score:2)
Can we do without ICANN? (Score:2)
We'd need alternate root servers. This, at least, is easy, as OpenNIC [unrated.net] and others provide excellent, alternate systems (OpenNIC in particular is *extremely* democratic -- nearly the opposite of ICANN).
We'd need a new centralized point for distribution of whois server information.
We'd need a new group of people to agree on which addresses should be allocated in the IP address space.
We'd need a new group of people to agree on well-known port numbers (and provide a centralized distribution point for this information) and a host of other numbers related to protocols. MIME types and MIBs fit in here. I've always thought it a shame that there isn't a centralized magic number registry, so if ICANN was replaced, I think it'd be nice to have a magic number database also available.
Anyone see any other problems with just ignoring ICANN?
Re:Can we do without ICANN? (Score:2)
Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (Score:1)
Lord Vader has disolved the Senate (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate (Score:3, Funny)
"Fear will keep the local systems in line." [cnn.com]
"The Senate has got a lousy record on my judges. We need to change the Senate for a lot of reasons, and one reason is to make sure we've got a sound judiciary," he said Monday in Denver.
"This comprehensive plan calls for a clean start..." added the President's lapdog, Ari Fleisher.
(ok so it's not as bad as i made it sound, but it's still pretty funny, in context)
Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate (Score:2)
Hopefully enough Democrats will object to filibuster most of this nonsense.
Re:No more parasitic "civil servants"? Good. (Score:2)
The people trying to further themseleves? This is where CEOs and businesses like Enron come in.
People trying to do what is in their best interests, while looking out for others - good luck finding many of these people - they were run out of business long ago by the Wal-Marts of the world.
People trying to further the community before themselves? This was once the defining characteristic of a polotician. Then DC was built, and the poloticians had a place to get drunk and have sex with prostitues... It was down hill from there.
As for the wealth and freedom aspect - greed and the lust for power are too great, and freedom requires education and vigilance by everyone, not great leaders.
From the article: (Score:5, Funny)
Right. With this latest move, unresponsiveness now becomes a distinct possibility. I'd really hate to see ICANN become indifferent to ordinary users...
Re:From the article: (Score:1)
Too late.
Re:From the article: (Score:1)
Re:From the article: (Score:1)
No sh*t^H^H^H^Hkidding. <sigh> Still, this change will mean that the public has even less access to the ICANN board. At least now, they have to listen when Karl Auerbach objects to some of their more idiotic decisions.
While I'm disappointed at this, though, at the same time I can't say that I'm surprised. ICANN was set up as an essentially non-representative body from the outset. It isn't surprising that ICANN's real constituency has grown restless having to give at least some heed to what the elected board members had to say. :/
I'm not sure whether the solution is a complete change in the ICANN charter and ground-up revamp of its mission, composition, and methods, or shutting down the organization and starting over from scratch. Since the two would probably be close to the same thing, maybe it doesn't matter.
So, who wants to bell the cat?
Re:ICANN Ditches Ordinary Users (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure I'm not alone.
Re:From the article: (Score:5, Funny)
Lynn and others said the group's former method of electing five of the 18 board members over the Internet bogged ICANN down in debates that held up its main work -- making decisions that affect everything from how Web sites are named to how e-mail is sent.
Elected member: "We can't do that, it's wrong. They've been in business, since the great-great-grandfather arrived from Russia in 1830, and been shipping orders from their webpage since 1992!"
Appointed member: "There he goes again, bogging us down, holding up our main work"
A.M. 2: "We need to get on with transferring shapirosdelicatessen.com to Microsoft, since the new MS Delicatessen IDE is coming out next fall."
A.M. 3: "And don't forget, we've got to transfer cerf.net from that cybersquatter, Vint Cerf, Verizon, for their new C(entral) E(uropean) R(adio) F(requency) wireless broadband network."
Chairman: "Bailiff, remove him."
Did you notice this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did this line jump out at anyone else? They were tired of people telling them that they were out of touch with internet users, so they decided to stop allowing internet users to elect members of the board. Isn't that like cutting off your leg because of an ingrown toenail?
Or am I just out of touch with the politics here?
Re:Did you notice this? (Score:4, Funny)
Not exactly. I would say it is more like having a lobotomy because your brain keeps telling you it's not good to eat toxic waste, but you happen to like the taste of it.
Re:Did you notice this? (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't that like cutting off your leg because of an ingrown toenail?
Actually, it's more like cutting off your feet with a rusty pocketknife because they hurt when you walk barefoot on broken glass and rusty nails.
That was Monday's Karl Auerbach story (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Did you notice this? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you've obviously have been hit way too hard by a clue hammer.
Unfortunately, to understand ICANN, you have to be hopelessly without clue and/or possessed with the knowledge that whoever disagrees with you is wrong. It also helps to be on the corporate dole...
They tired of the illusion of democracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They tired of the illusion of democracy... (Score:2)
To paraphrase Uncle Joe, how many divisions does ICANN have?
Re:Did you notice this? (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, Vint Cerf was heard to remark "Let them eat cake!"
Re:Did you notice this? (Score:5, Funny)
On a more serious note I would have thought there'd be some legislation to stop a public services company ('cause that's what ICANN is, like it or not) from reducing it's public accountability...
They want public participation (Score:5, Insightful)
If ICANN had any interest in real public participation, then we would never had heard of Karl Auerbach as he would not have to file a lawsuit against ICANN [slashdot.org] to see the books.
Unifying, isn't it? (Score:2)
That universal statement applies to US Presidential elections, capitalism, protests, this very website, and many other aspects of the modern world.
The only true way to freedom for any institution is continuous open revolt -- ICANN should be protested everywhere they go like the WTO and the World Bank are, as they are nothing but a dictatorial politburo posing as a public institution that must be overthrown.
Re:Unifying, isn't it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's time... (Score:1)
OpenNIC (Score:4, Informative)
a parallel namespace run in true freeware style.
You mean like OpenNIC [unrated.net]?
OpenNIC is not such a good idea. (Score:2)
Let me tell you why I think that OpenNIC and similar entities are a bad and dangerous idea.
Think of the phone system . . . when you dial a number, it rings at a particular location because there is a central numbering plan that ensures that each telephone number is unique. The DNS works in a similar way. If telephone numbers or domain names were not globally unique, phone calls or e-mail intended for one person might go to someone else with the same number or domain name. Without uniqueness, both systems would be unpredictable and therefore unreliable.
Ensuring predictable results from any place on the Internet is called "universal resolvability." It is a critical design feature of the DNS, one that makes the Internet the helpful, global resource that it is today. Without it, the same domain name might map to different Internet locations under different circumstances, which would only cause confusion.
When you send an e-mail to your Aunt Sally, do you care who receives it?
Do you care if it goes to your Uncle Juan instead? Wait a minute...do you have an Uncle Juan? Then whose Uncle Juan received it? Do you care if it reaches Aunt Sally if you send it from work but my Uncle Juan if you send it from home?
Of course you care who receives it . . . that's why you wrote it in the first place. Whether you're doing business or sending personal correspondence, you want to be certain that your message gets to the intended addressee.
If at any point the DNS must make a choice between two identical domain names with different IP addresses, the DNS would not function. It would not know how to resolve the domain name. When a DNS computer queries another computer and asks, "are you the intended recipient of this message?", "yes" and "no" are acceptable answers, but "maybe" is not.
This is where ICANN comes in . . . ICANN is responsible for managing and coordinating the DNS to ensure universal resolvability.
ICANN is the global, non-profit, private-sector coordinating body acting in the public interest. ICANN ensures that the DNS continues to function effectively - by overseeing the distribution of unique numeric IP addresses and domain names. Among its other responsibilities, ICANN oversees the processes and systems that ensure that each domain name maps to the correct IP address.
Behind the scenes, the story becomes a little more complicated.
In an Internet address - such as icann.org - the
At the heart of the DNS are 13 special computers, called root servers. They are coordinated by ICANN and are distributed around the world. All 13 contain the same vital information - this is to spread the workload and back each other up.
Why are these root servers so important? The root servers contain the IP addresses of all the TLD registries - both the global registries such as
Scattered across the Internet are thousands of computers - called "Domain Name Resolvers" or just plain "resolvers" - that routinely cache the information they receive from queries to the root servers. These resolvers are located strategically with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or institutional networks. They are used to respond to a user's request to resolve a domain name - that is, to find the corresponding IP address.
So what happens to a user's request to reach our familiar friend at icann.org? The request is forwarded to a local resolver. The resolver splits the request into its component parts. It knows where to find the
Why do we need the resolvers? Why not use the root servers directly? After all, they contain essentially the same information. The answer is for reasons of performance. The root servers could not handle hundreds of billions of requests a day! It would slow users down.
It is important to remember the central and critical role played by the root servers that store information about the unique, authoritative root. Confusion would result if there were two TLDs with the same name: which one did the user intend? The beauty of the Internet architecture is that it ensures there is a unique, authoritative root, so that there is no chance of ambiguity.
Anyone can create a root system similar to the unique authoritative root managed by ICANN. Many people and entities have. Some of these are purely private (inside a single corporation, for example) and are insulated from having any effect on the DNS. Some, however, overlap the authoritative global DNS root by incorporating the unique, authoritative root information, and then adding new pseudo-TLDs that have not resulted from the consensus-driven process by which official new TLDs are created through ICANN. The alternate root operators persuade some users to have their resolvers "point" to their alternate root instead of the authoritative root. Others (New.net is a recent example) also create browser plug-ins and other software workarounds to accomplish similar effects. The one uniform fact about all these efforts is that these pseudo-TLDs are not included in the authoritative root managed by ICANN and, thus, are not resolvable by the vast majority of Internet users.
There are many potential problems caused by these unofficial, alternate root efforts to exploit the stability and reach of the authoritative root. These efforts are often promoted by those unwilling to abide by the consensus policies established by the Internet community, policies designed to ensure the continued stability and utility of the DNS.
For example:
First, the names of some of these pseudo-TLDs could overlap TLD names in the authoritative root or those that appear in other alternate roots. Our familiar friend icann.org could appear in two different roots. Your e-mail to Aunt Sally could end up with my Uncle Juan.
Second, the unknowing users might not be linked to one of these alternate roots and not be able to reach these pseudo-TLD addresses at all. Your e-mail to Aunt Sally could end up as a dead-letter.
Third, those purchasing domain names in these pseudo-TLDs may not be aware of these and other consequences of the lack of universal resolvability. Or they may be under the impression that they are experiencing universal resolvability when in fact they are not. They may be very upset to learn that the names they registered are also being used by others, or that a new TLD in the authoritative root will not include those names.
These problems are not significant so long as these alternate roots remain very small, that is, house few domain names with little potential for conflict. But if they should ever attract many users, the problems would become much more serious, and could affect the stability and reliability of the DNS itself. Users would lose confidence in the utility of the Internet.
ICANN's mission is to protect and preserve the stability, integrity and utility - on behalf of the global Internet community - of the DNS and the authoritative root ICANN was established to manage. ICANN has no role to play with alternate roots so long as these and other analogous efforts do not create instabilities in the DNS or otherwise impair the stability of the authoritative root. But ICANN does have a role to play in educating and informing about threats to the Internet's reliability and stability.
ICANN is a consensus development body for the global Internet community, and its focus is the development of consensus policies relating to the single authoritative root and the DNS. These policies include those that allow the orderly introduction of new TLDs.
There are those-including operators of commercialized alternate roots-who pursue unilateral actions outside the ICANN consensus-development process. Many hope to circumvent these processes by claiming to establish some prior right to a top-level domain name. ICANN, however, recognizes no such prior claim. ICANN will continue to reflect the public policy consensus of the global Internet community over the private claims of the few who try to bypass this consensus.
In Short . . . . .
Just as there is a single root for telephone numbers internationally, there must be a single authoritative root for the Internet, administered in the public interest. OpenNIC is a serious threat to the future survivability of the Internet.
Re:OpenNIC is not such a good idea. (Score:2)
So what's the worst that could happen if one or more of the alternative roots gained significant mindshare from ICANN and there was a forking of the Internet? Some method might have to be worked out whereby you specified which root you patronize.
That would be inconvenient, certainly, and it would certainly be better if that could be avoided (which ICANN could easily accomplish, were they at all genuinely interested in doing so), but accomplishing it would not be all that difficult. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of threatening the entire ball of wax.
In short, no, OpenNIC is not a serious threat to the future survivability of the Internet. To the extent that it threatens to inconvenience Internet users, the blame lies squarely on ICANN's doorstep for failing to meet the needs of its constituency.
Re:I think it's time... (Score:1)
The problem isn't ICANN, it's the fact that we let the thing be run by ICANN in the first place.
Wired ICANN take (Score:4, Interesting)
Are they on crack? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh? How does getting rid of publicly voted board members, and then buffering yourself from the risk of being voted out make one "more plugged-in to the community"???
Do they actually believe the bull that they are shoveling? Do they actually expect us to believe it?
Re:Are they on crack? (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh? How does getting rid of publicly voted board members, and then buffering yourself from the risk of being voted out make one "more plugged-in to the community"???
Two words:
Propaganda
...ok, maybe one word.
Re:Are they on crack? (Score:2)
war is peace.
freedom is slavery.
ignorance is strength.
Shanghai (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shanghai (Score:2)
From the article (Score:5, Funny)
hmmm, how about
.cant
or
or
or
Re:From the article (Score:1)
A previous Slashdot article about the event (Score:2)
For more information about the elimination of the five publicly elected seats on ICANN's board, please refer to this article on Slashdot [slashdot.org].
So long .free, hello .chains (Score:1)
It's cold out there.
Granted, it just got a whole lot colder in here. It is too bad that an alternate registry cannot gain enough momentum to actually compete versus ICANN.
So long
irony (Score:1)
Gopher Gulch (or whatever Ayn Rand's utopian place was) would be an ironic place for the meeting.
Rumbles and grumbles (Score:4, Informative)
Some related items: there are rumblings of possible alternatives [idg.com.hk] and here is a paper [cdt.org] presented by the Centre for Democracy and Technology [cdt.org] to the Shanghai conference yesterday, which outlines a few suggestions as to how things might be improved.
And having dropped all pretention of fairness (Score:5, Funny)
In keeping with these changes, ICANN announces that it will be changing its name to reflect its new mission to become:
Universal Controller of All Network Traffic.
(Headline: ICANN changes name to UCANT).
Credit. [slashdot.org]
Re:And having dropped all pretention of fairness (Score:5, Funny)
66.35.250.150
Crooks (Score:4, Insightful)
ICANN has no legitimacy. If they did, ALL of their board member's would be publicly elected. Unless ALL of their board member's are publicly elected, the entire organization is a illegitimate crock.
"This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now," Lynn said
What a fucking moron. How the fuck is it possible to be more "plugged-in to the community" by eliminating public elections? It isn't. The only possible reason for eliminating public elections is to dodge all responsibility, so you can never be held accountable.
As for more efficient, yes, it will be more efficient at making immoral decisions; just like Saddam Hussein is very efficient at quickly deciding how to execute his enemies. Its really tough to make immoral decisions when you have to worry about public elections. Much easier to just cave in to business demands when you don't have to be held accountable to the public at large.
Re:Crooks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Crooks (Score:2)
They aren't developing weapons of mass destruction?
Oops, I forgot about the .info TLD. Never mind.
Re:Saddam Hussein was re-elected recently. (Score:2)
Just having elections dosn't mean that much. Few people would have claimed that Soviet Russia was democratic or that Robert Mugabe was fairly elected as the leader of Zimbabwe.
What you need are free and fair elections. With procedures for counting which are open and transparent. It soon became clear in 2000 that this was not the case with the disputed ballots (indeed it would be very hard to make a mechanised system which was) and that procedures for handling recounts simply didn't exist.
We have a system of checks and balances that attempts to keep any one group from gaining too much power.
Which apparently don't take into account political parties and can be more imagined than real.
Irony Meter is pegging... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Irony Meter is pegging... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny thing, huh? Its almost like countries themselves have become conference halls, each with its own set of convenient or inconvenient services (er, laws) for the planners of our future.
Re:Irony Meter is pegging... (Score:2)
Yeah, I found it funny they held that meeting in a place where if protesters went en masse, theyd be labeled hypocrites (ie harm to the delicate environment there) by default. Very clever.
Good (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:2)
Is this before of after the school changes its name to The Pepsi Insitute for Higher, Fizzier Learning?
The good thing (Score:2)
Uh, so what can we do? (Score:1)
It seems like theyve shut us out of all legit, legal options. Time to break out the brass knuckles and get ready for a serious physical beatdown.
Im kidding of course.. but seriously, what do we do now?
Its the plan (Score:2, Interesting)
They want to turn the whole digital thing into push technology in the hands of a few - like TV.
Im tired (Score:1)
I am still confused as to why an American company can possibly be allowed to control the Internet. I know the history so don't tell me about ARPANet and the rest, the simple fact is, the Internet is no longer an American institution, it has gone global.
Why not set up an International body to take over from ICANN? A body with full participation of the Internet Community from the start.
Ah forget it, why would they do that, it would only give power to the people.
ICANN because ICANN that's why! (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly, I do not want to see people writing their senators on this one though. I want to see an internet-elected system that everyone has dreamed of and then MAKE IT HAPPEN. Once we have a respected and responsible internet name counsil created along with a good base set of servers, then we simply persuade everyone to switch over.
Okay... I see the first hurdle that will be difficult -- getting people to switch. It can be done people. If there is no interruption in normal usage, it can be done. Further, once we have a good strong and accountable body in place with all the rules and regs ironed out in such a way that everyone agrees it to be a fair system, THEN we start crying to our senators and stuff. Show them that not only is ICANN screwed up, but we have something created to replace them today. Once they see that we offer more than a complaint, but a solution, how can they easily say no?
We can make a huge petition to push this thing through. They have to listen.
Complaints alone will not correct this problem. If you leave it to someone else to fix it, it will not be fixed in a way you will appreciate.
From the article... (Score:2)
Shouldn't they really call themselves "AFRICANN"? Come on, that seems like a no brainer.
There's a difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Wasnt' this always a sham anyway? (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't see this as any big loss. Just more honest.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
The Earth shifted even further in it's orbit, as Jon Postel continued spinning madly in his grave.
The inevitable name change... (Score:3, Funny)
Corporation for
Assigning
Names and
Numbers via
Totalitarianism
Directors? (Score:1)
You mean "Board of dictators", right?
The other half of the question (Score:3, Insightful)
Broadcast Spectrum (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Broadcast Spectrum (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as access to bandwidth goes - if you're willing to pay for it, the numerous companies who own fiber optic lines running around the world are more than willing to sell it to you. Of course, commerical sites tend to have more of it, since they can afford to pay for it.
Unlike broadcast, you can have as much bandwidth as you want from point A and point B. Of course, you may have to lay down more fiber if it isn't already there, and that is reflected in the pricing. Nobody regulates this area (well, beyond regulations that deal with running wires around cities in general) and there is competition.
Bandwidth isn't a public resource. It doesn't need to be, as it isn't nearly as much a natural monopoly as last-mile telephone is.
Of course, you might argue that DNS roots are a public resource - so if you are really talking about meaningful DNS addresses going to big multinationals that is a different matter...
History Repeats Itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right. Mussolini got the trains running on time and Hitler got the Autobahns built. I guess we need a dictatorship to get stuff done efficiently and effectively...
Re:History Repeats Itself... (Score:2, Funny)
You know, I seem to have encountered mention of Hitler or Nazis in several of the threads I've browsed in the last week or two.
It just made me wonder if Godwin's law [faqs.org] also applies to /.?
And if it does, what does it mean when those posts are modded up?!?
Mike
Re:History Repeats Itself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Calm down (Score:3, Insightful)
What's stopping us from creating our own DNS? (Score:1)
How long until... (Score:2)
this page [icann.org] simply says "GET BENT" in 72pt type?
The time to act is now (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody owns the internet. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's just re-cap what it means though:
The RFCs, ICANN, the DNS system, and so on, none of these are definitive authorities on anything. The reason the internet (a large collection of networks) works is because we all follow roughly the same standards; we all agree to follow what icann says with regards to who owns what IP addresses, and we all agree to use the current DNS system. Nothing FORCES anyone to follow any of these with their systems, other than the desire to obtain the benefits that go along with playing nicely with others.
If ICANN gets too far out of whack, they can be ignored. For instance: IF a bunch of major networks get together and decide that they no longer want to follow icanns regulations regarding ip address allocation, and that they are all going to start using some space that icann refuses to allocate, nothing will stop them. IT's their network, their business; if they all agree to route this traffic to each other, all the better.
The same goes for dns; if the dns system gets too crazy, a new standard can emerge, and peopel can follow it.
Of the RFCs that are relevant to the modern internet, we don't use them strictly. We don't use all features of IPv4, for instance.. it's a guideline, not a rule.
It's all about cooperation; if icann stops being a benefit to the internet at large, it will simply be let go.
Artificial Scarcity (Score:2, Informative)
That was a long time ago. Today, this artificially limited system has resulted in an entire commodity market driven solely by the decision to allow companies to profit by controlling the growth of the system.
It's privateering, plain and simple. Those administering the system have no incentive to expand it. ICANN and the other groups act as thugs enforcing the status quo, while users are forced to deal with the inflated costs created by artificially limited supply. The thugs occasionally throw a few improvements out to appear generous and justify their existence.
Let's review: The change to a laissez-faire market resulted in DNS being subject to normal economic pressures. With a focus on profit instead of service, DNS suppliers quickly recognized the potential in encouraging demand while not providing for any growth in supply.
Now, for a great many of you reading this, capitalism and democracy mean the same thing. A lot of you DO know the difference, however, and haven't really thought about whether you consider yourselves capitalists or not. And a few of you, who undoubtedly read Kuro5hin, have strong opinions one way or the other about capitalism.
Me, I hate it. While capitalism _is_ true to human nature, it does not encourage noble behavior. There is no incentive for suppliers to produce more simply because it serves the common good, and no incentive for purchasers to pay more money simply because the supplier's values are more respectable. The government attempts to simulate these things by taking money from everyone and using it to reward those individuals and organizations whose values coincide with those of the bureaucrats in power. Values like multiple children, home mortgages, a spouse without a career.
Enough ranting. If you actually read this far, then you can surely find more drivel like mine - just Google for 'Libertarian'...
-Elentar
Re:Artificial Scarcity (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem isn't with with the DNS, it's with misusing the DNS as though it is a flat namespace. Thus you get www.someadvertisingsloganwhichwillonlybeusedfor3m
Technically ICANN has no power (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a good reason for this, we don't want a fractured net where different people get different answers to a DNS query.
At the same time, if we truly have the will to dump ICANN, and we all do it at once (or at least the most commonly used nameservers do it at once) their power can be totally stripped from them.
I outline how at this page [templetons.com]
Re:Technically ICANN has no power (Score:2)
Actually, the root server will tell them to ask the
just being picky!
Of course, root-servers.net is ICANN of course, and then gtld-servers.net is Verisign/NetSol, so we have two levels of evil to replace
Think of this as a test (Score:4, Interesting)
Over the years, idealists and dreamers have talked about the Internet like it's a new country or community, and that We The People own it. [uiuc.edu] Well, here's a test for that assertion. Now we have to get off our lardasses and go through the strenuous exercise of typing new numbers into our /etc/resolv.conf files. I know, it's hard.
When we throw off ICANN's rather loosely-bound chains, then maybe those Internet "Declaration of Independance" ideas will be more than mere pretentious and immature daydreams, and we'll be Real Men, like our forefathers who had the courage to implement the 1986 Usenet renaming. ;-) Until then, though, ICANN and others like them, have no reason to pay attention to rants on Slashdot. At most, they might look down into our little field and idly wonder what we are "baaah"ing about.
As for some ideas on how to get from here to there, I recommend Brad Templeton's essays on DNS. He has put some thought into this that goes deeper than, say, the OpenNIC project.
D'oh, missed link (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Think of this as a test (Score:2)
If we can come up with a way of wresting control of the root servers from ICANN in a way that won't break the existing scheme, then the transition is done...
FidoNet (Score:2)
No need to redo it, the original is still around. [fidonet.org]
Shanghaied! (Score:4, Funny)
No more elections (Score:5, Funny)
The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
Anonymous Coward: "But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?"
The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line.
The ITU should take over ICANN and IANA (Score:2)
The downside is ITU is extremely bureaucratic and not known for public participation. Their standards process also leaves much to be desired compared to the IETF RFC process.
Big Q (Score:2)