×

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 Government Withdraws IANA Contract From ICANN

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the can't-they-just-keep-them-in-numerical-order? dept.

The Internet 140

mbone writes "The 'no cost' contract between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN over hosting the Internet Assigned Names and Number Authority (IANA) was supposed to be re-let this March. Now, it has been withdrawn, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) says that 'we are cancelling this RFP because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community.' This is a pretty stunning vote of no confidence in ICANN by the U.S. government, on the eve of the 43rd ICANN meeting in Costa Rica. Speculation is that this is related to the attempts of the ITU-T to take over Internet governance, but it also could be over the new global top level domains. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more about this in the weeks to come."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

140 comments

Wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314101)

That's a bit of a customer device huge already - if you know what I mean.

Re:Wow (-1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314143)

I have no idea what either you or TFA mean, but that won't stop me from commenting, whoo!

No seriously, what does it mean?

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314185)

It's a direct quote from some mangled editing in this recent slashdot summary: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/03/10/1943249/apple-to-add-3600-jobs-at-new-304-million-campus-in-austin [slashdot.org] It seems to be an unparseable phrase, which apparently GP decided was worthy of meme-ification:

"Apple Inc. plans to create a $304 million campus in Austin, Texas, which will add 3,600 jobs over the next decade, more than doubling its labourforce in the city. The Cupertino, California, customer device huge already employs thousands in Austin, whose tasks include handling customer issues and support."

Re:Wow (2)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314255)

Huh, that's certainly obscure. Some should make memedot.org and mirror all slashdot stories there, just so people could get it out of their system :P

But actually, what puzzled me just as much was the summary.. I guess I'll have to actually click the links then, oh boy. Shit, that was a meme. Meme meme meme. Meme.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39315397)

Huh, that's certainly obscure. Some should make memedot.org and mirror all slashdot stories there, just so people could get it out of their system :P

No thanks, that'll put the domain under American jurisdiction, better make memedot.br or memedot.cx, even memedot.cn would be safer.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

bbecker23 (1917560) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314357)

I'm pretty sure it's just some poorly done translation.

consumer device giant already

pretty easily becomes

customer device huge already

if English is not your first language.

Re:Wow (2)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314823)

I didn't read the summary or the article, but I am guessing it is some non-English speaker trying to say "The huge Cupertino, California, consumer device [manufacturer] already employs..."

Maybe if you do a few round-trips thru google translator, then ask Siri what it means you will be enlightened even further.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314223)

No seriously, what does it mean?

ICANN: Okay, we've been thinking about it and it's hard to see what's wrong with a XXX domain - at worst we still get porn everywhere on the internet, like we already have, and at best some of it's a bit more centralised where people can filter it.

US Government: AHHHHHHH it's like admitting sex exists. Don't do it, don't do it!

ICANN: Ah, well in the absence of any coherent arguments, we've decided to go ahead with the XXX domain.

US Government: WTF? We only went with an independent body for this sort of thing on the understanding that you'd follow our every whim. Right, we're not going to let you do it any more.

ICANN: So who is?

US Government: Ah, well, still you then okay, but we're cancelling our RFP and , uh, renewing you for another six months anyway until we have to renew you again after that,

Slashdot: BIG NEWS! Contract withdrawn, stunning vote of no confidence!

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314399)

Thanks, this makes it clearer. The US is just speaking for their puritan roots.

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314657)

I don't think you know much about the Puritans, they drank, had tonnes of sex and dressed in bright colours. What they did not do was get drunk, have sex with people they were not married to or dress like emos.

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314555)

and at best some of it's a bit more centralised where people can filter it.

Eh... I wouldn't say that's a good thing.

Even if it's porn, I'd prefer it not be censored at all.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314797)

US Government: AHHHHHHH it's like admitting sex exists. Don't do it, don't do it!

This is Insightful? Give me a break.

First, .xxx solves absolutely no problems. It will not make porn easier to filter (why use .xxx if everyone is filtering it?). Arguments about specific TLDs aside, I seriously doubt that .xxx in particular has much to with this situation. Rather, .xxx is a symptom of a larger problem.

ICANN has stopped working to serve the public's interests. The proliferation of new TLDs, including .xxx, has been brought about for a single purpose: to make registrars more money. With .xxx its been nothing but a blatant extortion campaign against large companies -- "register, or else". If the goal of this direction is to fundamentally change the hierarchical nature of DNS (say, to move from www.microsoft.com and yro.slashdot.org to www.microsoft and yro.slashdot), then that is probably a good idea in the long run, but the way in which they're going about it is nothing more than a money grab.

Put simply, ICANN has stopped working for a better and more stable public Internet and has instead taken a dive directly into the registrars pockets. I personally would like nothing more than to see the US stick it to ICANN if it will help put them back on the right track (or work towards their outright replacement).

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

number11 (129686) | more than 2 years ago | (#39315325)

Put simply, ICANN has stopped working for a better and more stable public Internet and has instead taken a dive directly into the registrars pockets. I personally would like nothing more than to see the US stick it to ICANN if it will help put them back on the right track (or work towards their outright replacement).

The only flaw I can see in this reasoning, is that the US government has not shown any evidence that it wants "a better and more stable public Internet", at least not when there is any conflict between that and doing the bidding of the corporations who, ultimately, fill every politician's campaign coffers. Or conflict with repressing their political bête noire of the week.

I wonder if ICANN was making unhappy noises about domain seizures.

Re:Wow (2)

Xipher (868293) | more than 2 years ago | (#39315497)

I'm not suggesting this was majority opinion, but my understanding was some companies in the porn industry did want .xxx so that it could be filtered. Not all of the porn companies are douches, I believe some help companies that make filtering software because they agree children shouldn't be accessing that content.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316061)

That "register or else" thing must have been purely in the mind of the companies in question. Even before the .xxx TLD it was possible to register domains in a country where a company doesn't operate and do all sort of nasty things with it. But back then it was no big deal, presumably because a company could easily sue for trademark infringement and everyone knew that. And everyone still knows that so I don't see why .xxx would be more extortionate than the previous situation already was. It just doesn't make any sense, sorry.

Re:Wow (1)

ElusiveJoe (1716808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316615)

why use .xxx if everyone is filtering it?

Just stop looking at porn at work. Or if you're underage, stop using your parents' computer for porn.

That isn't the worst thing. (5, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39315043)

at worst we still get porn everywhere on the internet

No, at worst you have people spending millions of dollars to pay for domains that they don't need or want, but have to get for defensive purposes. The XXX domain is bad porn sites (since it leads the way to further censorship), it is bad for the fundies (since it does not involve sticking their head in the sand), and it is bad for all other corporations (because they have to buy domians for defensive purposes). The only people who benefit from having more generic TLDs are the registrars who will rake in tons of cash selling them.

Re:That isn't the worst thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316823)

I think the defensive registration argument doesn't hold water - people are smart enough to tell the difference between .com and .xxx

Re:That isn't the worst thing. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39317255)

It's not that people can't tell the difference, it's that they thing companyname.* is an official site.

ICANN unfortunately rejected my proposal of a fucksgoats TLD. I was going to charge $500/year for domains. If you're a celebrity, make sure you register yourname.fucksgoats before someone else does...

Re:That isn't the worst thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316921)

at worst we still get porn everywhere on the internet

No, at worst you have people spending millions of dollars to pay for domains that they don't need or want, but have to get for defensive purposes. The XXX domain is bad porn sites (since it leads the way to further censorship), it is bad for the fundies (since it does not involve sticking their head in the sand), and it is bad for all other corporations (because they have to buy domians for defensive purposes). The only people who benefit from having more generic TLDs are the registrars who will rake in tons of cash selling them.

Because every company has to buy the .xxx companion to their page? I still wonder why companies want to do that with this special TLD. If I am looking for a company and I am not using a search engine I usually use the company's name or abbreviation + .com, co.uk, de, dk or whatever is in the realm of commercial sites. .xxx is so far off the mark that spam from that domain isn't any harder to detect than the usual letter twisting.

Given the widespread annotation of xxx I don't see why people should think lego.dk and lego.xxx would be the same company or why lego.xxx would be bad reputation for lego.dk.

Re:That isn't the worst thing. (1)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 2 years ago | (#39317109)

Given the widespread annotation of xxx I don't see why people should think lego.dk and lego.xxx would be the same company or why lego.xxx would be bad reputation for lego.dk.

Unless lego.xxx somehow claims to be a site for Lego(tm) porn, and then the company can hit them with defamation, trademark violation, or whatever it's called. They don't need to own lego.xxx for that.

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314483)

And why it was necessary to put in FUD about ITU-T that isn't even mentioned in the article -- we will never find out.

first! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314103)

first post!

Re:first! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39315555)

Epic fail!

The End (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314133)

All your bases are us...

Re:The End (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314237)

I think this clearly shows that U.S. government wants to control the internet and they aren't letting that control go away! This is a direct act of WAR! To the horses, people!

Re:The End (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39315473)

To the horses, people!

just make sure they're genetically engineered cyborg horses with armor plating, rocket launchers, night-vision, etc...

Re:The End (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316135)

To the horses, people!

just make sure they're genetically engineered cyborg horses with armor plating, rocket launchers, night-vision, etc...

And lasers. This isn't shark week.

Misleading Headline (5, Informative)

GeorgeK (642310) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314209)

The headline is a bit misleading. What NTIA did was withdraw the RFP. The IANA contract still stays with ICANN (contract extended until the end of September), and there will likely be another RFP.

However, it is indeed a big rebuke, because in the NTIA Notice [doc.gov] they stated that " we are cancelling this RFP because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community" which is another way of saying that ICANN has not been acting in the global public interest.

Re:Misleading Headline (4, Informative)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314263)

Beat me to it ;) The relevant part of this is here:

On November 10, 2011, the Department of Commerce issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) SA1301-12-RP-IANA for a new IANA functions contract with a deadline of December 19, 2011. The government may cancel any solicitation that does not meet the requirements. Accordingly, we are cancelling this RFP because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community. The Department intends to reissue the RFP at a future date to be determined (TBD) so that the requirements of the global internet community can be served. Interested parties are encouraged to visit www.fbo.gov for updates.

Apprently they requested some policy changes from IANA, and IANA never submitted that they had made the changes requested. The changes requested related to allowing countries to have a higher degree of latitude within their borders:

Based on the input received from stakeholders around the world, NTIA added new requirements to the IANA functions’ statement of work, including the need for structural separation of policymaking from implementation, a robust companywide conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened respect for local country laws, and a series of consultation and reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability to the international community.

This seems reasonable, at least at this point. I suspect this is a non-issue, but worth watching.

Re:Misleading Headline (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314327)

The changes requested related to allowing countries to have a higher degree of latitude within their borders:

Unless they have oil.

Re:Misleading Headline (4, Interesting)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314789)

provisions reflecting heightened respect for local country laws

This is the scary part for me, at least to the extent that it takes the sort of country-specific blocking that Twitter and Blogger are doing, and the sort of The Pirate Bay blocking that countries are doing, and bakes them into the requirements of doing any sort of business with a domain name on the internet.

Otherwise, yeah, seems reasonable.

Re:Misleading Headline (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316519)

... country-specific blocking that Twitter and Blogger are doing, and the sort of The Pirate Bay blocking that countries are doing, and bakes them into the requirements of doing any sort of business with a domain name ...

Meaning local laws can decide what TLDs are allowed. They can ban ".xxx" for instance. And there is the slippery slope. A government with power to ban one domain 'name' will ban another, such as "wikileaks".

Re:Misleading Headline (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39315881)

Its the "heightened respect for local country laws" that has me worried here, as i wouldn't put it past the US gov to try to backdoor some nice great firewall of USA style crap for their corporate masters. Personally i think the net is just gonna end up more and more corrupted until we have to go to a darknet just to get back what we have. We got ICANN cranking out craptastic TLDs so their registar buds can make some cash trolling the corps, we got the US gov wanting to SOPA/PIPA the net, and we have dozens of countries that all want their own little control measures in place so they can make sure they don't get Arab Springed next.

Hairyfeet, got a sec? (Oakgrove again) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316097)

It's oakgrove again (hate to bother you but...) You know, he's the ac posting/stalking/trolling nutjob who *thinks* you & I are the same guy, and stalks us both by ac replies. Give me a hand with him because he hassled myself & others for 8++ hours yesterday and I am sending back some of the same to he now exposing him in it, using a post of yours I bookmarked in fact for it in fact.

It's a +5 moderated post tree it's happening in, and he's NOT liking it. I am sure you don't like his b.s. anymore than I do, and would like to give him a piece of your mind too (nobody does it like you do @ times, funnier than shit).

See here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2718299&cid=39314693 [slashdot.org] (from there onwards).

APK

P.S.=> That is, IF you have the time & inclination (I can see avoiding it too, to avoid hassles) but... he's SO DAMNED DUMB (if you read some of the links posted) it's not funny. Just teaching this little troll & stalk by ac post fool a lesson is all, hopefully preventing future re-occurences (doubt it, he's an "internet iron man" who raises hell online, but is a waste of life and worm in the real world I am certain)... thanks, & if not? NO biggie... the quote of yours I used set him off, because it wasn't "just me" showing how that scum operates here... probably elsewhere online too! apk

Re:Misleading Headline (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316043)

The changes requested related to allowing countries to have a higher degree of latitude within their borders:

That makes sense for countries in the southern hemisphere, but here in the U.S. of A. that pretty much just means Canada. Canada is cold, the people talk funny, and they have socialized medicine like Obamacare.

Re:Misleading Headline (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314267)

The headline is a bit misleading. What NTIA did was withdraw the RFP

Oh, I see. Did they at least extend any sort of QRTSP, or does the KLSMS handle that?

Re:Misleading Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314479)

The headline is a bit misleading. What NTIA did was withdraw the RFP

Oh, I see. Did they at least extend any sort of QRTSP, or does the KLSMS handle that?

Sort of - the QRTSP now runs for the next few months. Normally the KLSMS would handle it, but since NTIA is already involved they'll just CDHA it.

Re:Misleading Headline (3, Interesting)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314271)

I think you mean to say "global private interest".
Because quite frankly they have been doing a great job of keeping the internet where it is and there is no significant reason other than all of the legislature that has been out there to fundamentally kill the internet for everyone but corporations.

Re:Misleading Headline (1)

awehttam (779031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39315767)

It also says that no one else met the requirements. If ICANN is in the same boat as everyone else, either everyone isn't on the same page as the NTIA or the NTIA is on the wrong page as everyone else. Sensationalistic headline - perhaps there's some cause for concern about a less transparent organization (like the ITU) replacing ICANN but I don't see how this means ICANN has somehow failed to meet up to "community standards" given that the rest of the global community "failed" too. Not that I've read the RFP or responses..

Just making it official (-1, Troll)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314215)

The ICANN has been collaborating with the Amerian government for a while now, this move just makes it official that the government assumes total control.

Re:Just making it official (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314515)

Collaborating with the American government? But that's currently our Kenyan Socialist Czar Anti-Colonial Mastermind Barrack Hussein Obama, who I am told, with the utmost confidence by the right-wing noise brigade, is completely and utterly against America.

Ergo, cooperation with the American government is anti-American.

Re:Just making it official (4, Informative)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314633)

Collaborating? The US Government created ICANN in 1998 owned it until 2009. But thanks for your insight.

ICANN is a big joke (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314421)

'Nuff said. [kimmoa.se]

Re:ICANN is a big joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39315709)

Reading that was a big joke.

Global community requirements (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314451)

1. Requests for global removal of the records of sites responsible for the slander (as defined by the United Nations) of the most excellent leadership or governance of its member states must be honored within 90 minutes.

2. All requests for resolution of .com domains must initially resolve to a United Nations maintained address that will host a site warning of the inherent dangers of private corporate entities.

3. The cost of traditionally US TLD assignments (.com .org .us .mil .gov) must average between 1500% and 2000% more than all other assignments, with the accumulated difference forwarded to the United Nations for fair and equitable distribution.

Re:Global community requirements (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39315089)

You forgot some regulations that ITU has imposed on another global communication system, amateur radio:
  1. No relaying messages for third parties unless it is an emergency
  2. No encryption unless it is for specifically allowed purposes
  3. No communication with people in countries whose governments object to such communication
  4. Identification must be provided during each communication, and each person must have a unique identification.

None of these seem terribly far-fetched as regulations on the Internet...

Re:Global community requirements (3, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316129)

None of these seem terribly far-fetched as regulations on the Internet...

But they do seem terribly tyrannical.

ICANN's corruption finally has consequences (5, Interesting)

Arrogant-Bastard (141720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314525)

ICANN has been rolling out TLDs in order to profit its core constituency: the registrars.

Nobody needed .xxx -- except the registrar who pushed it and is now using extortion tactics to pressure people into buying domains in it, e.g. "get yours...before someone else does".

Nobody needed .info -- what, domains in other TLDs don't contain "information"? (Well...alright...spammers needed it, and quickly overran it. It's been a best practice in anti-spam engineering to block *.info and whitelist what you need for many years.) But registrars stood to profit, especially from the spammers buying domains by the thousands, so it was created.

Nobody needed .biz -- because we already had .com. But it was a chance to sell the same thing twice, always a great business opportunity for registrars, so ICANN made it happen.

And nobody needs hundreds of additional TLDs, either. There is no clamor of voices among the billion people on the Internet for .pepsi or .google or .dell.

It's not an exaggeration to say that the majority of domains in existence today are used for abusive purposes: spam, phishing, typosquatting, search engine manipulation, etc. Yet ICANN wants to do whatever it can to explode the number, to keep the cash registers ringing at the registrars.

What ICANN could be doing -- but isn't -- is to reign in the epidemic abuses. There are registrars that are owned by known spammers, for example. Another thing it could be tackling are domain confiscations (by the USG) without due process: ICANN can and should push back hard against that. But none of this will happen: ICANN is corrupt to the bone, a textbook example of regulatory capture, therefore it will do whatever maximizes the profits of its masters.

Re:ICANN's corruption finally has consequences (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314925)

What ICANN could be doing -- but isn't -- is to reign in the epidemic abuses.

But that would cost money, not make money. That is heresy in the Church of the Almighty Dollar.

Re:ICANN's corruption finally has consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39315665)

Plus user-facing URLs are on their way out, be it as a result of apps replacing browsers or the continual push to remove "implementation details" from Chrome and Firefox UI.

They've got to make their money on spurious TLDs now, no-one will care in 5-10 years.

Re:ICANN's corruption finally has consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316223)

Arrogant-Bastard [slashdot.org] wrote [slashdot.org] :

Nobody needed .info -- what, domains in other TLDs don't contain "information"? (Well...alright...spammers needed it, and quickly overran it. It's been a best practice in anti-spam engineering to block *.info and whitelist what you need for many years.) But registrars stood to profit, especially from the spammers buying domains by the thousands, so it was created.

{Sigh.} Is that really what everybody thinks? I got a .info domain name about 10 years ago. I wasn't a company, so I didn't want a .com. I wasn't an organization or a network provider, so I did not want a .org or .net. At the time, because this was to be a personal domain name that could double for personal business in the future, I picked .info.

Now that I think about it, I have to admit that I think I've only ran across one other .info domain. It has never crossed my mind that the rest of the world perceives it as a name space just used by spammers. Although I don't spam, I wonder if this perception would explain why here in the last year or two my e-mails seem to be getting blocked. (I thought it might just be because my cheap, shared web-hosting vendor had brought on some spamming customers and thus the IP of our machine and/or subnet was getting blacklisted.)

Re:ICANN's corruption finally has consequences (4, Informative)

Arrogant-Bastard (141720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39317165)

It's not a just a perception that .info has been overrun by spammers, it's a measurement. I've been working in this area for a very long time, and have done extensive number-crunching at the scale of "tens of millions of domains". It's certainly true that there are non-spammer-owned .info domains, but it's also true that spammers buy them BY THE THOUSANDS. (Registrars approve of this, of course; bulk customers are terrific for them. Even better: repeat bulk customers, because spammers who burn through all those domains will be back for more.) Of course, without inventorying all .info domains, I can't give an exact percentage; but based on what I've seen, it looks to me like 97-99% of .info domains are owned by abusers. And whether the "true" number is 98.2 or 99.3 or whatever, it doesn't really matter in a practical sense: blacklisting .info in toto and making exceptions is extremely effective.

Re:ICANN's corruption finally has consequences (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316251)

I agree completely. They were creating TLD's based on how much drug money or cunt money they would receive from them. And in between that, they sat on their ass collecting paychecks while the root registrars did all the work and took the beating.

The military was right to do this. The problem I have is what they will replace it with. If it's an Obama Communist shell company, then it's going to be worse than what we have now. If they actually are held to the requirements of the RFP, then it should work properly.

ICANN has made the problem worse, not better. This decision was proper. The next, is a toss up. As long as the Commi in Chief stays away from it, it has a chance to not be complete shit.

Re:ICANN's corruption finally has consequences (3, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316353)

And nobody needs hundreds of additional TLDs, either. There is no clamor of voices among the billion people on the Internet for .pepsi or .google or .dell.

Dozens or hundreds of additional TLD's are indeed a dumb idea. But thousands is a great idea - it would put an end to squatting and most WIPO domain disputes. Really specific ones like .coop and .museum are a step in this direction. They need to continue with .plumber and .geek.

Re:ICANN's corruption finally has consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316573)

Nobody needed .info -- what, domains in other TLDs don't contain "information"?

Yes, we did need .info. We needed an affordable generic TLD whose registry was not located in the USA and which did not impose onerous qualifications.

Re:ICANN's corruption finally has consequences (0)

Arrogant-Bastard (141720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39317181)

I strongly disagree. There has never been any need for .info and there is no need for it now. Domains in other TLDs are quite affordable -- provided you only want a few, of course, which is all that any responsible entity needs. Now if you want thousands, it's not -- but in that case, you're an abuser and I don't really care what you think. As for it not being in the USA, please...spare me. If the USG wants to confiscate .info domains, it will. You will not stop it. And as for your so-called "onerous qualifications", I've registered domains in .com, .net and .org over the past two decades with no trouble at all -- there was nothing at all "onerous" about the process.

I'm sure that "domaineers" don't like this, but domaineers are filthy, greedy parasites who should be banned from the Internet for life: they're the allies of spammers and the best customers of corrupt registrars.

The U.S. of A. invented the Internet (1, Troll)

skyhawker (234308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314597)

So why should we just go ahead and capitulate ownership? I mean, seriously? I'm all for helping out the world and all that, but I'm getting just a little sick and tired of everybody else trying to steal all our stuff.

Re:The U.S. of A. invented the Internet (2)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314771)

Perhaps, but it's an idea/tech that is worldwide now... Much like the freeway, postal service, and telephone service.

Re:The U.S. of A. invented the Internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39314799)

Well, USA are much less trusted now that they used to be before. USA used to be good guy, now they are "hard to tell" guys. The internet originated in american universities, which are still top of the world. They used to keep it free and nice and internet became important.

But the USA politician and business took over and the friendly period is over. People used to like to have USA in power, now USA in power is a scary proposition.

It is not about stealing your stuff, it is about being afraid that you will steal stuff of others.

Re:The U.S. of A. invented the Internet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39315237)

The USA has power because they are the best at exploiting others. Organizations deal with them because they are phenomenal at corrupting others. The USA have NEVER been the "Good Guys". The kindest thing they can do to a nation is refuse to do business with them. Canadians, for example, are a lot better off now that we slaughter, butcher and pack our own beef. Mad Cow Disease was WONDERFUL for us.

What's their business model now? "Hey, you're doing something smart over there. We have a monopoly on doing smart stuff. Give us a percentage or we'll send in the bombers."

Please, just curl up and die already...

ALL YOUR BEEF are belong to canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316455)

ya know what's funny about that beef bit ...go research how much Canadian beef you eat.
NO really we even let you take our beef process it and send it back and when you decided to stop all beef shipments that one incident which was taken care of ....well we should have went full on to processing for ever cutting you out of a lot a jobs.

OH and we still want the billion you stole for softwood lumber.
AND next govt we get were gonna raise out oil royalties with a chinese exception so we got another miltiary to back us up.
YA we dont need you you need us. OH and to prepare we got samsung to move a solar array plant here so we really will have lots a oil to sell.

OH and tell hollywood were gonna cancel all foreign copyrights for ever and patents too. BOY i can see how wealthy we become while you drive your tanks around some deserts....on dreamed up oil. Part of your yankie attitudes is you just think people will take your lame insults.

THE internet was invented for everyone to use like are you watching cable right now? that was invented in canada....PERHAPS we should come and unplug all the cable in the USA ...SORRY OUT OF SERVICE TILL YOU START ACTING NICER>

Re:The U.S. of A. invented the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316491)

Well what country do you trust? The US is only the good guy when it suits the recipients of large sums of money categorized as "Aid". It's the governments responsibility (all governments) who should put the interests of their country ahead of any other country. Thankfully the US is getting closer to telling the world to fuck off and if you need any help that's your problem. If Palestinians are not capable of taking care of themselves instead of living off of foreign aid why should anyone give a shit? If the Syrians or other middle eastern populations can't handle their own problems why should anyone give a shit? How much are productive individuals and countries be willing to support the less productive population? Why shouldn't countries be able to stop their civil wars or do something about a murderous dictators themselves?

Re:The U.S. of A. invented the Internet (5, Funny)

Unoriginal_Nickname (1248894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314809)

A Brit invented HTTP. I wish you'd stop stealing it.

(by which I mean I wish you would stop posting.)

Re:The U.S. of A. invented the Internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316077)

I daresay TCP/IP are a bit more crucial, but I understand that's a personal opinion.

Re:The U.S. of A. invented the Internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39317155)

TCP/IP wouldn't be terribly effective without packet switching, invented in the UK.

Or we could stop playing this silly "we invented it so we own it" game before we get to Babbage.

How is US govt controlling IANA? (3, Interesting)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316147)

I am somewhat puzzled by this story. Checking out the IANA's site, looks like they are responsible for coordinating some of the key elements that keep the Internet running smoothly. Whilst the Internet is renowned for being a worldwide network free from central coordination, there is a technical need for some key parts of the Internet to be globally coordinated – and this coordination role is undertaken by IANA.

Aside from the TLDs, the IANA also gets things like Internet Addresses from the IETF, which it then doles out to the various Regional Internet Registries, such as ARIN, APNIC, et al. While these organizations are not subsidiaries, they do get their number resources from IANA, which ensures that resources are properly managed.

So the thing that surprises me is - how does the US government get involved in IANA and various TLDs? The only TLD they should be bothered about is .us. I guess one could make an argument for .com, .org, .net and others, but there too, they are assigned to non-US organizations as well. While the US may have 'invented the internet', its management as a worldwide resource has to be free of any country's government, even if the bulk of that organization's activities happen within that country.

Which is why it puzzles me that the government should be in any way involved in the relationship b/w ICANN and IANA.

Re:How is US govt controlling IANA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316273)

The IETF only does standards, not policy, so they don't really have anything to do with this.

Essentially, the root DNS as it is now is only recognized as such because so far, ICANN did a pretty good job with it. Sure there have been some bumps and complaints, and a number of them were valid, but overall, it was Good Enough.

But if the US (or any) government *really* tries to get involved, it's only a matter of time before an alternative is found. Technically, anyone can be The Root. One only needs to get enough followers. Politics have no place here.

Re:The U.S. of A. invented the Internet (2)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39317259)

So since cars were invented in Germany, you would let Germany decide over car manufacturing worldwide? Radio was an Italian invention, should they decide frequency allocations in America? The list goes on.

Taking domains back (3)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314673)

I wonder if this has to do with the US authority over the Internet. We've already seen .com TLD takeovers, but maybe they want to do it in every country for the RIAA and friends. I have a feeling this is related to some new power grab.

About time (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316811)

It's about time that the Internet cut it's ties with a government that has shown to have no respect for it's International character. If I had a vote, I'd vote for both ICANN and IANA to be distributed over several well informed, democratic countries that have no real political or economical ties to each other, or to single large other countries. Sure, it's hard to find those, you may have to compromise, but anything is better than to have a corpocracy rule the Internet by yanking domains and deciding what TLDs are allowed.

Uh oh! The dreaded "No confidence" vote... (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39314999)

I suppose now the US will form a shadow imperial government dedicated to it's own dark deeds while publicly displaying a facade of pro-Democracy and anti-Authoritarianism until they amass total power over the world economies. Oh, wait...

ICANN people must be really sad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39315179)

... if they will not be able to keep their lifestyle, going from country to country making 'meetings' in luxury hotels. Costa Rica is beautiful.

ICANN is corrupt (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39315429)

ICANN has been bowing to pressure from the US government to allow the overtake of .COM domains. Whatever the details, it is excellent news that this corrupt organization is loosing.

Re:ICANN is corrupt (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39315511)

You do realize that the US government owns the .com, .net and .org TLDs, right?

Re:ICANN is corrupt (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39315839)

.gov .mil .edu and .us are the United States. .com .net and .org are international.

Re:ICANN is corrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316023)

Wrong. .com/net/org belong to the US as much as .co.uk, .net.uk and .org.uk belong to the UK.

When you invent something you get to be the default. This is why all stamps have their country of origin printed on them except stamps from the UK. /brit

Re:ICANN is corrupt (2)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316093)

Except I'm right.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 [ietf.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domain#Types_of_TLDs [wikipedia.org] .com doesn't belong to the US any more than .uk or .au

Re:ICANN is corrupt (1)

devman (1163205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316199)

Wrong, .com and .net are operated by Verisign under contract by the US Department of Commerce. The US Dept of Commerce assumed control of generic top level domains in 1997. So there ideal purpose might be international domains, make no mistake that they are under the control of the US government.

Re:ICANN is corrupt (4, Informative)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316281)

.com does not belong to the United States. The fact that Verisign was assigned control of the registry by ICANN does not change this. Similarly if ICANN gave the registry to an operator in France it would not mean that France now owns .com.

Since Verisign is a private company it is incorrect to say that the US Government controls .com. Sure they can (and do) abuse the unique position they are in by bullying the registry operator. But to conclude that they control .com is similar to concluding that they control Windows updates, since Microsoft also has its headquarters in the US.

I for one find it deeply concerning that the US is asserting jurisdiction over international domains. Many of which are registered outside of the US by foreign registrants and registrars.

Re:ICANN is corrupt (3, Insightful)

Frangible (881728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316591)

I'd say the problem is more that international media conglomerates are asserting jurisdiction over a US defense network. Sort of like how the time that private corporation tried to assert jurisdiction over US Air Force Space Command GPS spectrum. Oh wait, they're still doing that. Anyway, DARPA never seized anyone's domain, and USAF generals risked their careers to stop LightSquared from breaking your GPS.

If your buds at the MPAA and RIAA didn't get what they wanted here in the colonies for a foreign domain, they'd just get it in that country. Nowhere is safe.

Re:ICANN is corrupt (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316597)

You realize that the Department of Commerce also controls the root DNS zone right? They also allow Verisign to control .com and .net on their behalf (via ICANN). .com and .net are very much under US control.

I Am Not A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39315531)

I Am Not A ... fan of ICANN but I don't want the US government deciding what TLDs there should be.

No new gTLDs without US approval (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39316451)

One point in that RFP is that the contractor cannot create new gTLDs without permission of the U.S. Government. All they can do is recommend them.

silly people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39316687)

Why not tell the ITU and other countries to get F’d, and then restrict our own government to the issues of national security, bodily harm, and the use of forceful or extortionate methods of coercion – having a country law, a GAC rule, or an IANNA process to discourage those harms via the internet makes sense. No other country law does.

We should not have any other such law in the US. And countries that disagree can always just unplug themselves. They all need the US more than the US needs the rest of the world all put together.

The US Government and all other governments have no legitimacy or rights, they are merely in possession of significant ability to inflict physical violence, which they may or may not chose to use to protect their citizens from others and/or from each other. And they should be allowed to do no more.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...