Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Relaxes Control Over ICANN

Soulskill posted about 5 years ago | from the icann't-believe-it dept.

Government 230

An anonymous reader tips news that the US Dept. of Commerce has signed an agreement with ICANN to end their current oversight responsibilities and allow more input from the global community. "The move comes after European regulators and other critics have said the US government could wield too much influence over a system used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Those critics have complained, among other things, about the slow rollout of Internet addresses entirely in languages other than English." The US will still be involved; every three years, ICANN's work will be evaluated by a committee, one member of which will be from the Dept. of Commerce.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LOLINTERNET (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29595799)

ICANN HAZ DOMAIN?

Re:LOLINTERNET (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29597221)

Why does the stupid europeans and asians think they deserve to have OUR internet? It's our invention. Fuck off and go make your own. If you cant, too bad.

We didn't spend our money on it for nothing. Are you freeloaders that only want to use what we made? USA has been a country for far longer than your stupid European Union thing. Go make your own things.

EU politicians suck even more than US ones (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29595801)

I can't wait for directives from EU politicians like "Create a .xxx domain!" that busts the whole web and costs tens of billions of dollars in economic damage.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29595887)

It's ICANN under US oversight that has suggested the worst idea at all - allowing companies to create and run their own TLDs, that really DOES bust the whole web. Adding a .xxx domain doesn't break the web anymore than adding .com, .net, .org, .net, .info, .biz, .tv has.

This is the best thing for the internet, because it means the land of the terminally stupid (terminal because people would rather run round shooting guns there than have healthcare to help them live longer) no longer has full control, not that with the incompetence ICANN has shown it should really have any control at all.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones (3, Insightful)

brainboyz (114458) | about 5 years ago | (#29596137)

It doesn't bust it any more than having companies running their own domain DNS does. It puts more load on the root servers, but custom TLDs don't bust DNS any more than domains running custom DNS servers to host subdomains.

Btw, good job on posting that opinion appropriately: as a coward. :D

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596889)

Yes, actually it can.

Please read -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596405)

I am the original AC.

Please read -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones (0, Flamebait)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29596567)

Good job for moderators to put this as -1 flamebait - He has a point and I completely agree with it. Like someones summary says, there's no -1 disagree mod point and flamebait/troll is not an alternative for it.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones (4, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 5 years ago | (#29596727)

You wanting it modded up because you agree with it is no better than modding it down for disagreement. It was modded down because he says Americans are all stupid and raises issues completely unrelated to the topic as "evidence". That's flamebait. Funny how the "terminally stupid" laid the whole foundation for the internet in the first place which is why everybody whines about how the US controls it.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones (1, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29596797)

While he went a big aggressive with the saying, he does have a good point. I still dont undersant why ICANN is fully-usa company and has control over all of the internet, while it spawns over all of the countries.

Re:EU politicians suck even more than US ones (4, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | about 5 years ago | (#29596941)

I want to run around shooting guns and have working inexpensive health-care!

Oh, boo hoo rest of the world (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29595829)

We made the internet, it's ours. If you don't like, go get your own internet.

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596229)

Oh yeah, you made the whole network, put all the cables and routers and networking systems in all the countries all around the world.

Oh wait, no you didn't.

The internet is a global network, connecting countries together. If you don't like it, stay in your own house and play alone, you close-minded xenophobic american.

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world (4, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 5 years ago | (#29596927)

If my network is so awesome that my neighbor wants to spend his own money and time to connect to it that does not give him any rights or entitlements over what still remains my network. Why is that Americans seem to be the only ones who can grasp basic ethical constructs like this? Oh, that's right, because we design everything and the rest of the world just whines about how they're entitled to our work.

Re:Oh, boo hoo rest of the world (2, Funny)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 5 years ago | (#29596569)

If you don't like, go get your own internet.

And to think some people complained that English was overrepresented on the internet...

other countries too (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29595837)

This is only a good thing. ICANN with it's power has been too US based for long time already, while internet is global.

As an EU citizen I'm happy and even surprised to see this happening - US actually caring about other people too and giving some control to people elsewhere.

To begin with Internet was a distributed system that couldn't be taken down at one point.

Re:other countries too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29595973)

The US invented the Internet though so whatever... Do you really want the UN to manage the policies? If you think changes on slow now then you haven't seen anything.

Re:other countries too (3, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29596413)

Yes, I'd rather see UN manage the internet than a single country (US). Then it would actually have opinions of other countries on it too.

Re:other countries too (4, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 5 years ago | (#29597069)

You do know that the opinion of other countries like China, Bahrain, Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North AND South Korea, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, UAE, Yemen, etc. is 'censor it for any reason that might potentially undermine the state or social norms.' Yeah, we really need their input.

Re:other countries too (2, Interesting)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | about 5 years ago | (#29597097)

I think having the Internet controlled by politicians in any organization is not a good thing. I would rather see it in the hands of something like ISO or something along those lines. Probably more like "along those lines."

Obama is a Good Manager (-1, Troll)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | about 5 years ago | (#29596047)

As an EU citizen I'm happy and even surprised to see this happening - US actually caring about other people too and giving some control to people elsewhere.

Obama is a realist. He knows that he's got to give up some control over the international ventures if he's going to expand his micro-management of every fuckin' US citizen's personal life.

Re:Obama is a Good Manager (0, Troll)

osu-neko (2604) | about 5 years ago | (#29596573)

Obama is a realist. He knows that he's got to give up some control over the international ventures if he's going to expand his micro-management of every fuckin' US citizen's personal life.

His predecessor thought it was the government's job to tell me who I could or couldn't marry. I've actually never seen much in the way of micromanagement of people's lives from the D's, but the Republicans make it a point of making the most personal decisions in my life for me. If Republicans have their way, I can't even make personal decisions controlling my own body.

Re:other countries too (0, Troll)

brainboyz (114458) | about 5 years ago | (#29596049)

I disagree. The US put the majority of the work into establishing it, so why should they share control with anyone else? The tech has been spread world-wide, so there is absolutely no reason other communities can't develop their own network and route DNS requests accordingly similar to how the phone system works. It's just that everyone wants to piggy-back into the original system because it's the default, there's already so many people using it, and it'd be a ton of work to setup another system.

Re:other countries too (0, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29596283)

You do understand that US as a nation haven't been going for long in historical scale? Most of what US has been based on now we're developed in europe before england shipped there (and robbed the land from native americans).

So if you're gonna come up with the "US developed it and it shouldn't be used elsewhere", atleast think about where US tech has come from.

Re:other countries too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596895)

Agreed. Internet has been common everywhere for ~20 years already. It's not something US should control.

Re:other countries too (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 5 years ago | (#29597349)

You do understand that US as a nation haven't been going for long in historical scale? Most of what US has been based on now we're developed in europe before england shipped there (and robbed the land from native americans).

It was the Europeans who started robbing the land hundreds of years before the US came into existence. And please let us know what enlightened country you've come from.

So if you're gonna come up with the "US developed it and it shouldn't be used elsewhere", atleast think about where US tech has come from.

Most of it has come from the US, actually. But let's be honest here, nobody is trying to prevent internet technology from falling into other country's hands. You're not understanding the difference between the technology used to build an infrastructure, and the infrastructure itself.

Re:other countries too (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#29596313)

I can't believe this crap gets moderated up every time. The US put the majority of work into establishing what, exactly? Into designing TCP/IP? More or less true, although it was reviewed internationally and a number of the contributors were not from the USA. Building the infrastructure? No. Within the USA this is true, but outside (you know, where most of the Internet is)? Not so much. Hosting the root DNS servers? No, sorry, the majority of them have been hosted outside the USA for quite a few years now. Services that run on top of the Internet? You mean like that protocol designed by a Brit in Switzerland that you're using to troll Slashdot?

Re:other countries too (5, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | about 5 years ago | (#29596477)

Rather than bicker over who has the "right" to control it, a more important question is what's the practical implications of control. If other countries grow upset at US control, eventually they'll circumvent it. As soon as one country does it and tests the approach, it may create a domino effect where everybody does it, leaving the US on a digital island. Ultimately any given country can control whatever comes in over their wires, and if they don't like the US's approach, they'll usurp it when needed.

Re:other countries too (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | about 5 years ago | (#29596533)

Absolutely 100% correct.

Lets take an example of the sorta tech used in the internet. Fibre Optic Cables.
If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber#History [wikipedia.org]
you will see that the work to develop the tech was made from contributions from all over the world.

Re:other countries too (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 5 years ago | (#29596601)

I may or may not agree with you about US-made-the-internet or whatever. However: define "most of the internet."

This seems like a very interesting idea. Most of the internet is outside the US? Does that mean most web servers are outside the US? Or most internet users? or what? citation?

Re:other countries too (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596825)

There are more internet users in China than there are people in the US. QED.

Re:other countries too (1)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29596949)

This seems like a very interesting idea. Most of the internet is outside the US? Does that mean most web servers are outside the US? Or most internet users? or what? citation?

I dont think that as so far possibility. If you've ever visited or learned an another language, you'd see how large local internet they have too. USA does count for many sites that people from other countries use, but in total count its probably 10% of the websites.

Of course it's harder to see for people in USA since the websites are in other language. But both China and Russia have more people than US does.

Re:other countries too (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | about 5 years ago | (#29596967)

I thought the US military still had the largest block op IP addresses though. Who exactly contributed on TCP/IP outside the us? I'll grant you, that the WWW and a whole host of other things were developed outside the US but TCP/IP? I believe that goes back to 1957.

http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_darpa.htm [livinginternet.com]

What we did or did not do, is not the issue, but were sharing, so be happy.

Re:other countries too (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 5 years ago | (#29597095)

Who exactly contributed on TCP/IP outside the us?

A quick look on wikipedia confirmed that University College London were involved from fairly early on. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_Suite [wikipedia.org]

Re:other countries too (1, Interesting)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 5 years ago | (#29597235)

You're basically arguing the merits of Boeing vs. EADS as a way to discredit the Wright brothers. It doesn't matter so much who invented which protocol as who networked computers in the first place. Not to mention that hardware vs software/firmware/protocol is not a chicken vs. egg matter. Hardware always comes first, and those designs come from the US. (IBM, Cisco, 3Com/USR, Intel, AMD, etc. etc.)

Re:other countries too (2, Interesting)

Bralkein (685733) | about 5 years ago | (#29596411)

there's already so many people using it, and it'd be a ton of work to setup another system.

Well that sounds like a good reason just by itself, and you don't really give any reason for the US to maintain control other than some strange possessive instinct. The internet is a global system now, so it makes sense that ICANN should be accountable to global interests. Even though I'm British, I don't actually have a problem with the way ICANN has been run by the US, but the last thing I want is for everyone to start coming up with their own crazy system because of the kind of pointless, divisive behaviour which the US is thankfully avoiding with this new decision.

In fact, you mention the telephone system, but I bet it's a pain to have to parse all of the different crazy international phone number formats! Maybe a global system would be better for that too, if we could start from scratch :)

Re:other countries too (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596101)

So we're giving more control over the internet to total surveillance societies like Great Britain? Not that I'm against sharing control, but I also don't see how it's automatically a good thing.

Re:other countries too (0, Troll)

clickety6 (141178) | about 5 years ago | (#29596863)

Hmmm...which is worse? "Total surveillance societies like Great Britain" where the people know they are under surveillance as opposed to total surveillance societies like the USA where the people don't know they are under surveillance?

e.g. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70910 [wired.com] ;-)

Re:other countries too (2, Interesting)

tverbeek (457094) | about 5 years ago | (#29596271)

This isn't just taking control away from the US government, it's putting that control more firmly into the hands of a private organization. "International" doesn't automatically mean "better" (witness the WTO and IMF). All it means is that US citizens will be just as easily ignored as EU, AU, OAS, ASEAN, and ETC citizens are today.

Re:other countries too (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#29596487)

I don't believe in re-inventing the wheel. The organization that regulates the assigning of telephone numbers has done a competent job since 1865, and I'm sure they could do an equally competent job over IP assignments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITU-T [wikipedia.org]

Re:other countries too (2, Interesting)

R2.0 (532027) | about 5 years ago | (#29596615)

Aside from your blatant paternalism (the US has existed a lot longer than the EU has), you're happiness translates to me as "Good - now the EU can have a shot at exerting control."

As a US citizen, I'm completely unsurprised by the EU claiming to care about other people while consolidating power in itself.

Re:other countries too (-1, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#29597005)

(the US has existed a lot longer than the EU has)

Quoted for funneh.

Maybe take history classes again?

Re:other countries too (2, Informative)

brainboyz (114458) | about 5 years ago | (#29597291)

He's right. The European Union (established by the Treaty of Maastricht on November 1, 1993) hasn't existed as long as the United States (July 4, 1776, Declaration of Independence).

Re:other countries too (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | about 5 years ago | (#29596847)

As an EU citizen I'm happy and even surprised to see this happening - US actually caring about other people too

Considering the history of Europe in the 20th century, as an EU citizen you should be one of the last people to be "surprised" at the US helping others.

First amendment is the best protection in the US (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29597123)

The best argument here is the US constitution and the first amendment. Despite attempts at censor or block or mess with things those attempts get canceled out and reversed once the court gets involved. What do you think China's views on a wide open internet are? How many other countries have that type of protection?

ICANN?? (1)

cjzlducls (1643807) | about 5 years ago | (#29595849)

ICANN = Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ...did not know what ICANN was.........

Re:ICANN?? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29595895)

I guess ICANN remember that.

Re:ICANN?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29595995)

ICANNHAZCHEEZBURGER.

Re:ICANN?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29597251)

How about "Understand Criteria for Assigned Names and Numbers Thinking" (UCANNT).

speed? (3, Interesting)

twotailakitsune (1229480) | about 5 years ago | (#29595909)

Have you seen how slow the UN is at things. If it was under the UN we would be talking about roll out in the year 2500 if it is put on speed. not that I don't want ICANN to look at the world, but I just don't want ICANN to slow down just to be under the whole worlds control. If it works great, don't fix it. If it works ok, fix it without braking it, or slowing it down.

UN slow? (3, Informative)

MosesJones (55544) | about 5 years ago | (#29596201)

Is the UN really that slow?

Look at UNHCR which are just about the quickest set of people to react when a disaster strikes

Look at the Climate Change pieces which brought together the whole world and came to an agreement (sans one little country called the US)

Now what you might mean is that it takes the UN a long time to crack down on other countries who do things that your country doesn't like, that is certainly true. These are the people after all who refused to rush into Iraq, the slow-coaches.

The UN is an organisation that works by getting people to agree. ICANN should be the same. Having ICANN as an extension of US policy doesn't mean that things happen quicker (look how long its taken for the US to get a decent health service or a policy on climate change that makes sense) but it does mean that they are open to accusations of prejudice.

The UN does a good job, having people like Bolton, Bush and Cheney knocking it alongside people like Qadaffi complaining about it really just underlines what a good job it is doing. If it can piss off Cheney AND Qadaffi it must be doing it right.

Re:UN slow? (2, Insightful)

brainboyz (114458) | about 5 years ago | (#29596295)

Far more countries than just the US declined to participate in the Climate Change issues. As for healthcare and the US climate policy, perhaps the US' view of these topics is different from your own? Just because their policies are different from what you'd want doesn't mean they don't make sense from a different perspective.

Re:UN slow? (4, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | about 5 years ago | (#29596645)

Very few countries didn't accept the UN findings on climate change, China and India both did for instance. Now in terms of signing up to doing something then that is a tougher argument, but getting people to agree on the problem was the first step and there the UN did well.

On Healthcare, you are right the US might have a different opinion. Most other countries would think that having the highest per capita spend on healthcare and having lower life expectancy, 700,000 people a year forced into bankruptcy and 1/6th of the population not even covered is a bad thing. I mean some mad people might think that a system where you ended up paying less, covering everyone and increasing average life-expectancy was better... but unfortunately those systems don't deliver 30% profits to insurance companies, which is of course the american way (apparently).

Re:UN slow? (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 5 years ago | (#29597023)

Now in terms of signing up to doing something then that is a tougher argument, but getting people to agree on the problem was the first step and there the UN did well.

Isn't this actually the main complaint about the UN? Nobody denies that it's good at getting people to agree on problems. Everyone wants world peace, the eradication of poverty, and so on. The hard part, which the UN has a much more mixed record on, is doing something about it.

Re:UN slow? (2, Insightful)

SBrach (1073190) | about 5 years ago | (#29597245)

Half of that 1/6th make over 50 grand a year and 1/4 of that 1/6th are foreign nationals. I, along with many Americans, do not believe in forcing insurance on people who can afford it but don't want it. I also don't see why we should pay for citizens of other countries. That leaves around 10 million people who are not covered and make less than 50 thousand a year. Sounds like we need to expand state and federal aid to include these people rather than turn over the entire apple cart and force socialized medicine down everyones throats. Another fun fact is 80% of Americans are happy with the health care they currently have. As far as the paying less....what percentage do you pay in income taxes again?

Re:UN slow? (0, Troll)

brainboyz (114458) | about 5 years ago | (#29597373)

Healthcare isn't the problem. The problem is most of my fellow Americans are fat lazy-asses. That's why costs are higher and lifespan is lower on average. Think about it, if your fellow countrymen were not at all concerned about their health and you were in shape with minimal healthcare costs, would you want someone to mandate that you help pay for everyone else?

Re:UN slow? (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 5 years ago | (#29596619)

Look at the Climate Change pieces which brought together the whole world and came to an agreement (sans one little country called the US)

Yeah, it's a good thing manufacturing giants like China are working so hard to protect the environment. Why can't the US follow its example!

Re:UN slow? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 5 years ago | (#29596685)

>>>takes the UN a long time to crack down on other countries who do things that your country doesn't like, that is certainly true.

So in other words the UN does a lousy job of performing its primary objective - to bring a ceasefire to warring nations via the "war on one member is a war against all members" philosophy. So instead they get into internet regulation. Hmmm - I don't recall reading that in the original charter. (shrug). I always find it amusing how organizations start as ONE thing, fail to accomplish that goal, and then mutate into some other beast in order to justify its continued existence.

Europeans have probably noticed this with the Common Market which somehow evolved into the EU and is only a few years away from becoming a centralized pan-European government with tentacles in every facet of their lives.

Another example is the U.S. Federal Communications Commission which was just supposed to stop radio stations from broadcasting on the same frequencies, like a mediator, and now they think they can regulate content too, including banning nudity on private cable channels and private websites. What the heck? Nudity is the only reason to buy cable. ;-)

Back to the UN - I hear the latest scheme is to directly tax citizens. I say - no taxation without direct representation.

Re:UN slow? (2, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | about 5 years ago | (#29596765)

Google "UN Nuclear inspections stalled again" or "UN sanctions unenforced" or...
 
Don't get me wrong, the UN provides a useful dialogue for nations, but as for it's capacity to deal with and defuse major international crises, it's difficult to point to any situation where they weren't almost completely impotent to the crisis at hand.

Re:speed? (1)

AnonymousIslander (1603121) | about 5 years ago | (#29596363)

Have you seen how slow the UN is at things. If it was under the UN we would be talking about roll out in the year 2500 if it is put on speed. not that I don't want ICANN to look at the world, but I just don't want ICANN to slow down just to be under the whole worlds control.

Tell that to certain UN member states (*cough*US*cough*) that use their influence to drag out/water down important decisions, if they don't simply ignore them completely (Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or Kyoto, perhaps?)...

If it works great, don't fix it. If it works ok, fix it without braking it, or slowing it down.

But is ICANN actually working ? It's been a source of debate for some time [slashdot.org] . With these changes comes a good opportunity to speak out about what changes we would want to see, not just to ICANN but your local politicians and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (or whatever your country's version is called) as well before our friends in Hollywood et al try to get creative...

Re:speed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596517)

fix it without braking it, or slowing it down.

Aren't those the same?

Can anyone tell me... (1)

dsginter (104154) | about 5 years ago | (#29595923)

Can anyone tell me why it costs nearly $10 to register a domain for a year? What is the profit margin on this? Who keeps the profit?

Re:Can anyone tell me... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596015)

It is 4k to apply for a registrars license, then 2500 a year (USD). Then it is .20 cents a domain. Your company must have 70k in working capital and I believe 500k in assets to become a registrar.

Re:Can anyone tell me... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 5 years ago | (#29596107)

It is 4k to apply for a registrars license, then 2500 a year (USD). Then it is .20 cents a domain. Your company must have 70k in working capital and I believe 500k in assets to become a registrar.

Many small businesses would qualify. $70K in working capital on $500K in assets is pretty close to average for established, moderately-sized small IT business with around 20 employees or so.

Re:Can anyone tell me... (2, Informative)

FsG (648587) | about 5 years ago | (#29597265)

This actually isn't quite true. If you become a com/net registrar, most of the money goes to VeriSign (who controls the com/net registry). The registrar has to pay VeriSign roughly $7 per domain per year that they register. The 20 cents per domain you're thinking of is the ICANN fee, which definitely exists, but isn't the biggest cost. org/info is similar, but the money goes to PIR instead of VeriSign.

The registrars' profit margin is quite thin.

Source: http://www.verisign.com/domain-name-services/become-registrar/com-net-registrar/index.html [verisign.com]

So who is ICANN accountable to? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 5 years ago | (#29595953)

I skimmed the article and this looks like it decreases ICANN's accountability to anybody. So when ICANN does something bad, who can hold their feet to the fire to get them to fix it?
ICANN is an organization composed of human beings, sooner or later it will do something that is evil.

Re:So who is ICANN accountable to? (3, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 years ago | (#29596147)

ICANN is an organization composed of human beings, sooner or later it will do something that is evil.

Too late. They have already agreed to sell gTLDs. As if the spam enforcement wasn't horrendous enough (it terms of registrar obligations), it is about to get a lot worse since with the gTLDs will go the registrar TOS.

In other words, for some time ICANN hasn't cared about not doing "evil", as long as it makes money.

Before U.S. Cedes Control To (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29595959)

"The US will still be involved; every three years, ICANN's work will be evaluated by a committee, one member of which will be from the Dept. of Commerce."

who will serve as a proxy for Walmart, Inc. [wikipedia.org] .

Good luck in the new Gulag.

Yours In Ashkabat,
K. Trout

No! (3, Insightful)

geekboybt (866398) | about 5 years ago | (#29596029)

I'm of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" persuasion. I'm also a fan of doing away with committees when a group of people have proven that they can do a job well. If the only complaint is that some things are slow, how on earth is bringing it to a committee going to make things any faster?

Re:No! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 5 years ago | (#29596559)

If the only complaint is that some things are slow, how on earth is bringing it to a committee going to make things any faster?

We'll all ponder that for a while, produce a draft study, and then get back to you at a future committee meeting to be scheduled at the Scheduling Meeting.
     

Re:No! (2, Insightful)

eln (21727) | about 5 years ago | (#29596793)

But it IS broke. ICANN regularly makes decisions based entirely on its ability to make money from them, even though it's supposed to be a non-profit organization. It has little regard for what its decisions mean for the long-term health of the Internet, and it's consistently espoused policies (such as domain tasting and ultra-cheap domain names) that make life easier for spammers and scammers at the expense of regular Internet users. It's also vastly increased the gTLD space for no apparent reason other than to generate more registrations, and therefore more money in its pocket. I don't know if a worldwide consortium could do any better trying to fulfill ICANN's charter, but it certainly couldn't do any worse.

Re:No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596915)

Re:No! (1)

eln (21727) | about 5 years ago | (#29596975)

I realize domain tasting isn't really done anymore, but it was encouraged for a long time. ICANN is still engaged in their other shenanigans like selling gTLDs, though. It's all about generating more registrations to get more money.

Re:No! (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 5 years ago | (#29597053)

If anything, freeing ICANN from US government control, and moving it to nebulous control of some squabbling mess of countries, seems like it'll have the opposite effect: give ICANN carte blanche to do whatever it wants.

This is a bad thing (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#29596087)

Expect to ahve about 100,000 TLD within the next 5 years.

Plus, who need accountability~

Re:This is a bad thing (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 5 years ago | (#29596309)

Oh yeah, I can already see it...
---

Dear client,

we have been made aware that there might be a problem with your bank account. Please log in and verify your personal informations including credit card numbers and expiration dates.

You can log in into our secure site at the following address: WWW.BANK.C0M

Internet Addresses in Other Languages? (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | about 5 years ago | (#29596103)

I can only assume the submitter means domain names in other languages. Internet addresses are either decimal (v4) or hexadecimal (v6) numbers.

Re:Internet Addresses in Other Languages? (1)

BlueKitties (1541613) | about 5 years ago | (#29596231)

I'm pretty sure anyone who says "Internet Address" does not mean "Internet Protocol Address." Most people who mean Internet Protocol will specifically say "IP Address."

Re:Internet Addresses in Other Languages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596377)

Internet addresses are 32 (ipv4) or 128 (ipv6) bits of raw binary data. Not some cuddly "hexadecimal" or "decimal".

Re:Internet Addresses in Other Languages? (1)

dazjorz (1312303) | about 5 years ago | (#29596527)

Yeah, probably domain names. My first thought was related to IP addresses too: maybe they mean allocation of subnets to countries where English is not an understood, let alone spoken, language. Such communication problems would make the process slow... But then again, that thought was probably just stupid :P

Prediction (5, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | about 5 years ago | (#29596131)

The chorus calling for the "end to US control over the Internet" will morph into the "end of ICAAN control, because they are not subject to oversight." Withe the "solution" being the same - UN oversight.

They are not looking for more freedom - they want more control.

Re:Prediction (1)

y5 (993724) | about 5 years ago | (#29596193)

The chorus calling for the "end to US control over the Internet" will morph into the "end of ICAAN control, because they are not subject to oversight." Withe the "solution" being the same - UN oversight.

They are not looking for more freedom - they want more control.

+1 Insightful. Alas, I have no mod points now. =/

Re:Prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596261)

And I already blew all of my mod-points before I got down here, damn

Re:Prediction (1)

Reziac (43301) | about 5 years ago | (#29596471)

I think you are absolutely right. And as a wise AC says somewhere down below:

"So we're giving more control over the internet to total surveillance societies like Great Britain? Not that I'm against sharing control, but I also don't see how it's automatically a good thing."

Re:Prediction (4, Insightful)

5KVGhost (208137) | about 5 years ago | (#29596655)

Exactly. And even as it's now envisioned, the multinational committees will likely be stocked with the same luminaries of free speech that sit on the Security Council. And it'll go far beyond just making new domain names. After all, someone has to enforce who is allowed to which TLDs, right?

Frankly, I don't give a damn what China, Lybia or Iran think when it comes to running the Internet. And, if it comes to that, I don't want things like the German, French, or Canadian "hate speech" laws going international either. That sort of feel-good censorship can be even worse than the jackbooted variety, as the authorities choke off dissent while insisting it's all for our own good.

Honestly, I can't understand how any serious observer of world affairs, whatever you may personally think of the United States, can maintain that UN control is preferable to the current system. Not by any standard.

Re:Prediction (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | about 5 years ago | (#29596817)

You mean like how the ITU act as censors of the telephone network?

Except they don't.

Re:Prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29597351)

Except that telephone networks haven't changed in EONS.

The Internet is still evolving, and is home to spam the same as whistleblowing email.

If someone wants to spam or break the news over the phone, its either costly and prohibitive, or you have to know who to call. On the Internet, billions of emails can be sent out for fractions of pennies, and important news can come from twitter the same as the BBC.

How silly to think they're comparable.

Oh noes! (1, Funny)

neokushan (932374) | about 5 years ago | (#29596149)

This all sounds like Socialism to me!

Re:Oh noes! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 5 years ago | (#29596635)

Well, what would the pure capitalism version of tracking ID IP be like? I'm pretty sure I'd have to first buy something to fix my split-ends before I get a domain....and I'm bald.

ICANN relaxes control? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 years ago | (#29596191)

You must be thinking of a different ICANN. The one I know sold their control some time ago.

Excellent news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596197)

Saudi Arabia to govern content.

What can possibly go wrong?

Ya Censorship! (1, Insightful)

sadler121 (735320) | about 5 years ago | (#29596489)

Ya, I can't wait till domains are revoked for holocaust denial, or for "hate speech" against any kind of minority!

Re:Ya Censorship! (2, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 5 years ago | (#29596733)

The nub of the issue is how to harden the internet against the vagaries of mob rule, special interests, fads and knees jerking. At the same time to embed freedom in such a way that the usual suspects can't dilute it, even if they try.

Whatever you might think of the USA, there is no other country in the world that could have delivered the internet in its current form, with its openness and freedoms.

However, that does not mean that the USA will remain a good custodian forever, so some insurance against future (current?) loss of liberty is appropriate.

I don't believe national governments or the UN are the answer, but am struggling to propose an alternative.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29596611)

ICANN needs to be under the exclusive control of the UN. Nothing more and nothing less. The US should not be "allowing" anything, it is the rest of the world who should be allowing the US to participate in OUR internet. The sooner the US no longer has control of anything, the BETTER.

It's not broken so don't fix it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29597071)

Don't give up the control over ICANN you silly Yankees! I mean, at least you have the first amendment which provides some sort of protection (even if the crappy antiterrorist FUD laws tend to hinder it). With whom are you going to share that control? France, where you have insane laws like DADVSI and HADOPI with more planned? The UN, where Tunisia had the presidency of the council of human rights? South Korea, where you have to give your real ID to be able to send videos to YouTube? Germany, where the Pirate Party had good reasons to demonstrate against brand new laws and where you're compelled to put that "imprint" with your real ID on your website?

I don't care about power struggles or prestige crap, it's not broken so no need to fix something that works pretty fine. Fwiw, this message is written by someone who is not American and who doesn't live in America.

Yes We CANN! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 5 years ago | (#29597075)

X: "But Obama, you can't release US control of it."

Obama: "Yes ICANN!"
   

Think this conflicts with the Cybersecurity Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29597301)

I'll believe it when I see it. This directly conflicts with Sen. Rockefeller's Cybersecurity act. See section 8: http://www.chrisbrenton.org/2009/09/cybersecurity-act-of-2009-in-depth-part-1/ [chrisbrenton.org]

He sits in the Senate Finance Committee and chairs the Committee on Commerce. Granted this has not been approved yet, but I doubt he would have included this section if Commerce planned on giving up control.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?