ICANN vs. ccTLDs in Geneva 80
Gallowglass writes "The Register is reporting on an interesting meeting in Geneva. To quote from the article, 'Why the huge fuss? Because the meeting threatened to turn into a caucus where rising resentment against ICANN and its attempt to stamp ultimate authority over the Internet could have escalated into international agreement and action.' Didn't quite, but the natives are restless. The article has links to all presentations given at the two day meeting, and also an audio of the event at the bottom of the article. It's also a good summary of the controversy and of its history."
BRING DOWN ICANN (Score:4, Insightful)
OH, and how many 'public' members are still on the ICANT^HN?? None.
Re:BRING DOWN ICANN (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there are a lot of people with business interests in getting a piece of ICANN for themselves, but giving it to them would hamper the interests of everybody who enjoys a stable Internet. Most people who dig beneath the anti-ICANN arguments to look at the facts and logic behind the situation come to realize that it is a necessary evil to cede control to one entity rather than trying to run DNS by committee.
FREEDOM is a valid alternative to AUTHORITARIANISM (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolute nonsense. All we need is a treaty that top level domains will be handled in a compatible fashion, so that folsk in
For international domains, such as
There really is no need for a central authority whatsoever
Nevertheless, national autonomy in ccTLDs is neither inappropriate nor too much to hope for
Re:FREEDOM is a valid alternative to AUTHORITARIAN (Score:1)
Re:FREEDOM is a valid alternative to AUTHORITARIAN (Score:2)
Especially since the likes of trademarks are subject to national laws in the first place.
For international domains, such as
How many top level international domains are actually needed? Especially were the DNS to be used as intended.
Re:FREEDOM is a valid alternative to AUTHORITARIAN (Score:2)
Why do we need any generic international domains at all?
Re:FREEDOM is a valid alternative to AUTHORITARIAN (Score:1)
Re:BRING DOWN ICANN (Score:2)
Re:BRING DOWN ICANN (Score:2)
Bringing pitchforks and torches and burn/stab the idiots out of ICANN HQ and take over the servers??? Or how about the Fiber-seeking-backhoe?
Re:BRING DOWN ICANN (Score:2)
Perhaps, but an organization that carries such a role needs the respect and support of its constituants. There is a big question about whether or not ICANN fits that bill. Ican seems to have foolishly spent the goodwill that it started with. Many (most?) of the people who understand the history and intent of both the internet and ICANN seem to be entirely unhappy with ICANN.
In short, ICANN seems to be acting more like a despot than a consensus maker. Until this changes, many countries are likely to continue to be loathe to vow fealthy to the directors of ICANN.
If it is absolutely necessary to have ICANN be the central authority, then it may be necessary to disolve ICANN in it's current form and reconstitute it almost from scratch.
Re:BRING DOWN ICANN (Score:4, Interesting)
Karl Auerbach [cavebear.com] was elected to the Board of Directors (At-Large Representative for Canada and the United States), he was not the president.
Karl did win his case [eff.org] with support from the EFF.
Stuart Lynn [icann.org] is President and CEO of ICANN. He is the one that is attempting to control ICANN through both day-to-day operations as President, and the Board as CEO. Stuart seems very intent in increases his power, and his domain of power, the role and responsibilities of ICANN.
I am miffed that IANA [iana.org] was assigned [icann.org] by the US Dept. of Commerce to ICANN, and not the Internet Society [isoc.org] / Internet Engineering Taskforce (IETF) [ietf.org]
Re:BRING DOWN ICANN (Score:2)
Re:BRING DOWN ICANN (Score:2)
The details are all online at http://www.eff.org/Infra/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_I
I am still on ICANN's board - I'm a temporary boardsquatter (although I don't hold a candle to those board members who were appointed for one year terms but who have self-extended themselves into their fifth year.)
As for ICANN and ccTLDs (country code top level domains) - one of the big issues is that ICANN is using its ability to control the delivery of IANA services - things like updating the delegation NS records - to coerce country code operators into signing contracts with ICANN. ICANN left several big ccTLDs -
Even though on the internet we may not be able to tell whether someone is a dog, ICANN is trying to set itself up as the authority to say who is and who is not a country.
ICANN could, for example, decide who gets to run the domain name
ICANN's treats country codes as merely database entries and not as an aspect associated with a sovereign nation. The sovereign nations, of course, take a rather different view. They don't pariticularly like having their existance on the internet subject to the private whims of a secretive private organization that exists in the United States and which is largely a private arm of the US Department of Commerce.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:1)
Down with ICANN... but what next... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay what do _you_ want to see replace ICANN, what would make _you_ happy.
Then look at the real players at this event and think. Is the issue that ICANN has too much control or that...
These people, corporations and goverments want a slice of the pie and to dictate it all themselves.
Now given how these things tend to go I wouldn't bet large amounts of Turkish Lira, let alone Dollars, Euros or Pounds that if ICANN is toppled that the resulting quango isn't just a collection of "interested parties" aka "the usual suspects" who try and define the rules for themselves. Lets face it this goes in with the copyright issues in the US, the WTO "screw the 3rd world" and corporatisation of politics and policy.
ICANN might be total and utter nutters and a total pain in the arse. But are you REALLY sure that what comes next won't be worse ?
Re:Down with ICANN... but what next... (Score:5, Funny)
We should let them control it. After all, their vision is the vision of a peacful humanity, living in harmony where all the MS-Citizens have equal rights to whatever MS-TLD they choose, and the MS-DNS would happily MS-Route all the MS-IP packets to their perfect destinations.
Really, isn't that an idealing MS-World we can all be happy with?
Re:Down with ICANN... but what next... (Score:1)
Re:Down with ICANN... but what next... (Score:1)
Re:Down with ICANN... but what next... (variations (Score:3, Interesting)
"But are you REALLY sure that what comes next won't be worse ?"
Are you REALLY sure that what comes next won't be better ?
maybe a better question would be "Are you REALLY sure that doing nothing is better than trying to change or to replace the actual system ? "
Re:Down with ICANN... but what next... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Down with ICANN... but what next... (Score:2)
And now mod me down...
Cheap/Anonymous registration (Score:2)
- Someone sends in a request for a name, the system checks whether it is available, and if so, generates a digitally signed certificate of ownership - consider it a kind of "bearer" bond representing ownership of the domain.
- That certificate can be transferred through a transfer agent (who would provide non-repudiation protection) but who would not necessarily be able to know what domain name the certificate represented.
- Anyone who wants to change the registration data - mainly the list of name servers - would have to present a the current copy of the certificate ("current" meaning that it is subject to a check with the a transfer agent to make sure that a pre-transfer copy isn't being used)
- Garbage collection would be performed either by no queries for the name for some defined period of time or the expiration of something like 100 years.
I figure that this system could be inexpensive (remember, the main cost of today's DNS registration system is billing and that that what one is paying for is to stop someone from doing the work to remove a name from the registration database). I figure that $25 could buy a registration for a 100 years. (ICANN's rules limit registrations - nobody knows why - to 10 years.)
The system could also be anonymous as long as the initial registration and transfer agent mechanisms self-lobotomize themselves to forget everything they knew about the identity of the parties involved.
Re:Down with ICANN... but what next... (Score:2)
Actually, I think things could be just fine without totally abolishing ICANN. If they were forced to live up to the democratic system that they were originally supposed to put in place, with elected representatives, everything would probably be quite a lot better. We need to toss out the current board of ICANN, elect a new board, and let them get back to doing things right. The jackasses that are running things now are the reason for all the problems.
Re:Down with ICANN... but what next... (Score:2)
The functions that ICANN should be performing are minimal,
and I'd like to see their replacement deligate as possible.
For example, instead of creating a body that resolves international disputes in the name space,
I'd much rather that they divied up the domains amongst
assigned jurisdiction over disputes of those names to the respective countries,
and eliminated all non-cc TLDs. (They can be moved under an existing
The only thing NewICCAN would need to do is keep the administrative records for a few hundred cc TLDs.
If a government wanted to, it could assign control over it's domain space to the current ICANN,
but I doubt that any government except the US actually would.
-- this is not a
Re:Down with ICANN... but what next... (Score:2)
Take a look at http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm [cavebear.com] for details.
Is something the matter? (Score:3, Funny)
Could it really be that /.ers are going and reading the article???
If so, today, 6th March 2003 will be remembered as a special day in the history of slashdot ;^)
Re:Is something the matter? (Score:2)
Sure, there are plenty of posters in other countrys, But this is when slashdot decieds to break^H^H^H^H^Hupdate their slashcode install, so just assume somethings broke.
ICANN's reputation (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, this doesn't make much sense. If they expanded and encouraged the Internet, wouldn't that be a good thing? It seems to me that if they expanded and encouraged the Internet, they'd be seen as good people. That sentence from the article makes it sound like it's a bad thing. The Internet gives people access to a wealth of information and helps them do their shopping, banking, etc. It's just my opinion that if they've helped more people get that ability, they shouldn't have this whole "huge cost to their reputation" thing.
Re:ICANN's reputation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ICANN's reputation (Score:2)
I think everyone and his mother has a "solution" to this problem. Including myself. But most are expressions of what they would like it to be instead of what would be best for everyone involved without targeting anyone specific. (which ironically is what i would like it to be..
Not a company nor a country should be "ruling" the internet but a non-profit organisation with members of different countries where chairmanship is rotated every x months or so to a representative of one of the involved parties. This way there will be no hidden agenda's played out because no-one stays in charge for too long and everyone can have a say in which direction the body should go.
Ideally this organisation would have thinktanks with regards to anything involved it's decision making and the "member of the board" should have at least some basic understanding of the technology involved with the Internet. It's records and dealings should be publicly available , preferably through the Internet, in a format for anyone to see (i.e. a non proprietary format like Word's
The UN is unfortunatly not a right choice since they do have hidden agenda's. The UN is furthermore not a very transparant organisation and this would certainly be no better then ICANN.
Re:ICANN's reputation (Score:1)
The presidency of the United Nations Human Rights Commission passes to Libya this year. No kidding.
It's a trite example I suppose but my point is that multinational organisations like the UN are hampered by smaller members punching above their weight. Thich could cause no end of hassle for something that relies on consistency and majority consent like the Standards that Govern the Internet (TM).
OK, this post is probably off-topic, but those are my thoughts.
Re:ICANN's reputation (Score:1, Funny)
No, no, no... turn it over to Iraq. Then everyone will be behind the war effort!
Re:ICANN's reputation (Score:5, Insightful)
Shame Auerbach wasn't there! (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, its probably worth adding "Force ICANN to reconsider its policy regarding cc TLDs" to the list of impossible things to do before your breakfast!
Re:Shame Auerbach wasn't there! (Score:2)
I was amused at ICANN director Hans Kr...'s comment that my submission was merely my personal opinion. ICANN's board has never voted on the policy put into place by ICANN's "staff" in which ICANN holds ccTLDs out to dry unless they sign contracts with ICANN. Al Capone in Chicago also probably never formally announced his "protection" racket, but it didn't take much insight to recognize that it was, in fact, there.
Re:Shame Auerbach wasn't there! (Score:1)
Good luck!
Really, ICANN and geography are irrelevant ... (Score:1, Interesting)
2tec ~ makes connections
It doesn't surprise me (Score:4, Insightful)
This an issue that people all over the world face , both collective entities and individuals, as more and more centralized authorities attempt to both aggregate and control information, as well as any associated privileges it may confer.
While some might argue that a centralized authority is necessary for an organized, well-structured effort, I'd point out that centralized authorities are a form of power and control. Human nature being what it is, this often leads to an effort to acquire more of the same, regardless of its effect on any initial objectives. ICANN should be looking for ways to centralize control over matters related to manage a set of general guidelines within which each member must operate, while still allowing them an appropriate degree of autonomy. It all boils down to an issue of sovreignty, and how this will manifest itself with respect to the internet.
ITU -- Pay for standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you trust such an agency?
See for yourself. http://www.itu.int/
Re:ITU -- Pay for standards (Score:3, Informative)
ccTLD whois (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, with the current situation I don't expect they would actually implement such as scheme.
Re:ccTLD whois (Score:4, Insightful)
what about a UN-model organisation? (Score:3, Interesting)
in my mind the best solution would be to hand control to an org with a board of appointed members each representing their own nation (say, the Ministar de Intarweb for Erewhon);
such as the UN. Proposals and issues could then be dealt with on a consensual basis, and organisations concerned with TLDs based in those countries could then communicate their issues to their Minister/Spokesman/whatever
funding for tech expertise etc etc can also come through those channels
the UN makes consensual decisions pretty well (at least as well as it can), why not model after it?
Surely you're joking (Score:2)
Stopping the genocide in Rwanda
Stopping the genocide in Cambodia
Ending the Traffic in Human Slavery
Solving the Isreali/Palestinian conflict
Solving the division of Cyprus
Ending the civil wars in equitorial Africa
And those are just the big successes where the prevented the loss of tens of millions of lives. It doesn't count the daily successes of ending international tyrany and misery everywhere else.
Yes, The UN should be the ICANN model.
The UN is ineffective (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the current Iraq issue: any member of the security council can veto any resolution. So even if there is unanimity, minus one... no action.
Basically, this means that the UN can't even vote to censure a security council member's behaviour, because that member would veto the resolution. Thus the top level people effectively have carte blanche: even if everyone in the UN wanted to stand against them, they would have to do it as individual nations, without organization.
All in all, it's pretty toothless. Which has been both good and bad historically (e.g. no UN peacekeepers landing in Waco, Texas, or in Alabama after Brown vs. The Board Of Education, or in Berkeley, CA, etc., during the Vietnam War).
But for an organization which *has* to make decisions on protocols or assignments of address blocks, or dispute resolution, the ability for one member state to render the whole organization indecisive really can't be tolerated.
-- Terry
Re:The UN is ineffective (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The UN is ineffective (Score:2)
This is pretty much off-topic since although the ITU is now an accredited member body of the UN it actually existed before the UN and has a very different history.
The security council is only one part of the UN. The rules were written with one aim in mind, to prevent proxy wars between the permanent members turning into direct wars between the permanent members. It has succeeded in this.
The current impasse is actually how the system is supposed to work. There is no military power that can constrain the US, however the rest of the world community has a degree of constraint through the security council. The US recognises that it will look pretty stupid using enforcement of a UN resolution as casus belli if the UN withholds its support for the action.
The noise being made about the Iraq issue discredting the security council is hogwash. It has never had any credibility in the first place. It only authorized one action in the cold war - Korea that turned into a minor fiasco. The next action it authorized was Iraq after the USSR collapsed. It had a brief spell of activity in a peace keeping mode afterwards until Somalia turned into a disaster.
The French position actually makes sense if you are French. Their principal fear is that the US will become a hegemonic power. Clearly if they simply buckle under the case being made by this administration they lose that battle. The French hope is that the US will go in, get maulled in urban warfare, conduct an increasingly unpopular occupation and finally retreat with tail between legs. It is not the outcome I prefer, but looking at the difference between claims made for the ecconomic plan and the results of the ecconomic plan I think Bush's shower could screw up anything.
A delicate little flower, my delicate little ass. (Score:4, Informative)
Bwahaa. The Internet is like Kudzu, overrunning and strangling all the other networks in the garden, and grafting into them and transforming them, borg-like, into more kudzu.
ICANN should stick to its technical mission -- keeping track of the names and numbers.
Public Utility (Score:3, Interesting)
On one hand, this bring me the image of PSTN monopolies of the 70's, with the abuses and inefficiencies.
On the other hand, regulated QoS levels, mandatory public access and connectivity mandate, common carrier obligation are all things that the broadband industry could use right now.
I wonder if the Internet is not mature enough to desserve the status of public utility, like the power grid, the water network, sewers, etc.
I think it would help to put emphasis on the "common good infrastructure" bit. it would prevent AOL or other providers to use their provider business to leverage their content business. It would ultimately help competition on the service provider side by giving an even playing field on the connectivity providing side.
It's a topic I haven't seen addressed on
Makes you long for the days... (Score:1)
The Register need a history lesson (Score:1, Interesting)