US Agency Lines Up Broad Support For ICANN Transition (pcworld.com) 64
An anonymous reader quotes a report from PCWorld: A U.S. agency has lined up broad support for its plan to end the government's oversight of the Internet's domain name system, despite opposition from some Republicans in Congress. The U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on Thursday released statements of support for a plan to end its oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Among supporters of a plan, developed by the ICANN community, to transition ICANN's domain name coordination functions to a multistakeholder governance model are Amazon.com, Google, Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Facebook, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. NTIA on Thursday announced it had reviewed the community proposal and found it meets the agency's criteria for allowing the ICANN privatization plan to move forward. The community plan maintains the openness of the Internet and maintains the security and stability of the DNS, said NTIA Administrator Lawrence Strickling. It does not replace NTIA's oversight with another government organization, he said, although that's been a fear of some critics of the NTIA plan. On Wednesday, Ted Cruz proposed a bill, the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, that would prohibit the U.S. government from relinquishing its role with respect to overseeing the web's domain name system (DNS), unless explicitly authorized by Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting thing to note: I know Americans can never contemplate the idea that anybody may have freedom who isn't American let alone have MORE freedom in some ways but just bare with me okay. Here in my country - guess who does NOT run the country TLD. That's right - the government. They have no control over the TLD assigned to the country.
When they tried to claim it was theirs to control - the people who do control it (a non-profit) shifted it to a foreign server and a massive revolt made the government b
Re: (Score:2)
>Are you a nudist?
Sometimes. And I find that debates are much more enjoyable when everybody is naked. Some people you can admire while they talk, others you can laugh at. Just imagine how much more informative the republican primary debates would have been had the participants been naked ? Instead of arguing about who has the biggest hands as a proxy for penis size, we could have just seen who has the biggest dick. Instead people got it backwards and voted for the guy who WAS the biggest dick.
Most of the world FAR less free than the US (Score:5, Insightful)
A few places are comparably free, but the vast majority of the world's population, regretfully, continues to live under regimes considerably more oppressive than the US. And I'm not talking just the usual suspects — like China or Russia — generally respectable places like India [freedomhouse.org] can be quite intolerant of unpopular opinions and authoritarian in controlling the information networks. It may seem crazy to Americans, but Germans [breitbart.com] and Brits [theverge.com], for another example, routinely get arrested simply for saying the wrong things on social media — in the US attempts to criminalize "hate speech" [amren.com] are still duly resisted [aclu.org].
Not to mention certain sunny locales, where one's had can be removed for apostasy [wikipedia.org].
Reducing America's control over the Internet will — inevitably and by definition — increase the share of control by these governments.
We've seen this before — UN's "Human Rights Council" is a good example of it. All of the things about it, that the so called "Liberals", dismiss as "myths" [brookings.edu], are actually quite true. It will happen to the Internet's governance — inasmuch as it needs any — as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Right yeah, the US is a world leader. This would be the US that still _murders children_ and calls that justice. The US that runs an illegal torture camp and says it shouldn't need to try people in court to find them guilty, because it has "proof" they're guilty, it just can't show that to anyone because it's secret proof.
The US where cops can take anything they want, and that's "lawful seizure", kill anyone they want and that's "self-defence", but it's OK because there's "due resistance" in the form of crazy people with guns causing even more murder but they're "citizens" so that's all right then.
Both you and the grandparent can be correct at the same time. The US government does have a rather poor human rights record. It's not much better than a large majority of the world's governments in that regard. Some state governments within the US have taken liberties that do appear to run counter to the Bill of Rights — and the courts are still examining that.
You should also consider, however, that the US government still does not have legal powers that other "free" countries' governments take for
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's the thing.
ICANN transition isn't going to be to some benevolent non-profit like it is where you are. It's going to be a worst of all worlds situation.
Expect:
1) The religious freedom of Saudi Arabia
2) The political freedom of North Korea
3) The IP freedom of the United States
Re: (Score:2)
And your evidence for this is ... what exactly ?
I mean, I think you were trying to use a slippery-slope fallacy but if so you didn't even do that very well since you failed to show any slope.
Re: (Score:1)
The only real failing of ICANN has been the failure to reclaim IPv4 space from the Class A holders. All those /8 spaces should be divvied up.
Given that those companies could be sharding those spaces and selling/leasing that space, but aren't, kind of hints as to the lack of sensible behavior we'll see by spinning off ICANN to a bunch of corporations.
As for ICANN running itself, well, there's certainly no incentive for any corporation to take it over or somehow subvert the authority for their own benefit.
Hav
Re: (Score:3)
What does the US possibly stand to GAIN by relinquishing control over this?
If there is no net gain for us, they why give it up?
Re: (Score:3)
My thought is....
What does the US possibly stand to GAIN by relinquishing control over this?
If there is no net gain for us, they why give it up?
How about respect in the international community. Oh, sorry. The US doesn't care about that kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Treating DNS as a key to free speech around the world, and protecting from the commercial abuse and deceit of DNS wildcards or the riduculous number of toplevel domains, would gain even more respect.
Re: (Score:2)
No...we really don't care what the rest of the world thinks about us....why should we?
Re: (Score:2)
No...we really don't care what the rest of the world thinks about us....why should we?
Of course, you have the worlds 'best' military, you don't need to care what they think any more than the school bully needs to care what other kids think of them.
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled "They have good infrastructure because anyone earning over $50,000 pays 50% on their taxes."
Re: (Score:3)
>Just remember, boys and girls, nationalizing a utility generally doesn't result in better service for the end users because there's little incentive to innovate.
Just remember, boys and girls, it's impossible to "nationalize" something that was built by government in the first place. You cannot take from the private sector that which the private sector has never had.
And I say this as somebody who is strongly in favor of this move - and defended it hugely in yesterday's story about Cruz's opposition. This
Re: (Score:2)
This discussion has been done to death and every time it's been shown to be a waste of time and effort. The "burn rate" for IPv4 addresses outstrips the number of IPv4 addresses that could even potentially have been reclaimed in this manner was (and still is) such that it would, at most, have bought just months before complete exhaustion - and that still didn't real
Re:This is just great (Score:5, Informative)
As it turns out, the REAL issue was implementing IPv6 on the mail server, adding my client's external IPv6 address into the postfix relay conf, and then it started working. Google is misleading with their "PTR" message; it can be fixed without SOA PTR. If anyone is curious, I made a tutorial on my site [tpfnd.cat] on how to figure out your IPv6, the conf files to edit, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving back a /8 adds about 1 month of not 'running out' of IPv4, really it's not that important.
Re: (Score:2)
Having ICANN't run itself?
Wait what??
A can of can't??? A can of can't???
This is a local shop, for local people. Theres nothing for you here.
Bill naming conventions (Score:5, Insightful)
In which we recognise the benefit of the bill to society is inversely proportional to how beneficial the name of the bill suggests it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Net protocols, new dns system.
Yep, some form of distributed DNS system will be a good idea. Expect to see it start happening in the next 6mo and gaining adaption and the countries who are pro-authoritarian or demanding everyone use a government ID to go online(S.Korea, EU, etc) to try making it illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, some form of distributed DNS system will be a good idea. Expect to see it start happening in the next 6mo and gaining adaption and the countries who are pro-authoritarian or demanding everyone use a government ID to go online(S.Korea, EU, etc) to try making it illegal.
I have been thinking about this for some time. My first idea was how to deal with the problem of when governments dictate to the root servers that domains should be erased or the nameservers changed, against the will of the domain owners. I was thinking of changes to nameservers so that they keep a historical database of changes in the IP addresses of a domain's nameservers and some way for end users to add some token to a domain name to indicate they want to use the older (correct) nameservers instead of t
"...despite opposition from some Republicans" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, some Democrats also oppose this bill. So, I guess there is opposition from both Democrats and Republicans, but you only mention the Republicans, presumably to make them sound "evil". Congratulations!! You've officially arrived as a member of the press!!
Abolitionist here. (Score:1)
On one hand, the US actually has abused its control over DNS. It has revoked domain names for political reasons.
On the other hand, there is good reason to believe other countries would be even worse.
Ultimately, I think ICANN is a weakness in the internet architecture that should never have existed. Rather than handing it over, it should be abolished altogether.
There is no "ICANN Community" (Score:2, Insightful)
If it is not broken, why fix it? (Score:1)
The system is working and working fine. If other countries want to manage a DNS they should build their own Internet.
Don't pretend it's government oversight (Score:2)