Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Govt Wants to Control ICANN?

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the international-and-independent-yeah-right dept.

The Internet 468

blankmange writes "ZDNet is covering a new piece of legislation that may be introduced by Sen. Conrad Burns that would give the US government more control of ICANN - the independent corporation that controls the domain-naming system of the internet. 'In a statement released two days before a Senate subcommittee is scheduled to hold hearings on the global body, Burns said the change was necessary because ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.'"

cancel ×

468 comments

And...? (1, Insightful)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679162)

It isn't as if they could fuck it up more than it already is.

Re:And...? (2, Interesting)

dirvish (574948) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679182)

As messed up as it is I still don't think we want the government to take control of it. Doesn't ICANN deal with international business and domains? Why should our government have control over it?

Ahhhhhhhh (-1)

Whistler's Mother (539004) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679313)

Does that Mean the Government will Control the Goatse!! [goatse.cx] ???

First CLIT post (-1)

Big Dogs Cock (539391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679163)

It's true.

Re:First CLIT post (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679194)

the frequent CLIT carpet-bombing for FP seems to be working out well.

Re:First CLIT post (-1)

Tasty Beef Jerky (543576) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679199)

Carpet-bombing is no longer PC, the correct term is "Long-Sticking."

Liberals really piss me off.

Re:First CLIT post (-1)

Big Dogs Cock (539391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679247)

Cluster bombing?

What's TTR doing with an on-topic FP anyway?

Re:First CLIT post (-1)

Tasty Beef Jerky (543576) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679275)

A lot of previously famous crapflooders have reformed their accounts. Why do you think so many of the current crapflooders have high UIDs?

the US Gov't can barely control their assholes (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679165)

FP dicklickers

bla bla bla CLIT

Pot? Is that you? (4, Insightful)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679167)

ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.

Kind of like... the government??

Re:Pot? Is that you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679225)

Damn i was going to say that. But i got beat out by obvious guy. How stupid it would have been if i had said it, considering if obvious guy says it IT MUST BE OBVIOUS.

Re:Pot? Is that you? (3, Insightful)

YanceyAI (192279) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679242)

Yes, except the government knows less about the Internet, technology, and what's at stake.

Re:Pot? Is that you? (1)

Agent Green (231202) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679266)

I'd reword that:

Exactly like...the government.

However, at least the government has a thing called "elections" by the "people". It's a novel idea...if only it weren't for those being elected by the people.

Re:Pot? Is that you? (5, Interesting)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679269)

Oh please. You know, for all the corruption, backdoor deals, conspiracies, etc, etc private companies have infinately more legistlation in place to protect their ability to do shit behind your back. I will never understand why people fear/dislike their government more than private companies who never even have to let you know anything strange is going on unless they get caught.

Kinda hard to knock the government when the problem in this case is clearly that the body is operating more like a company than a regulatory body as it should be.

Government 'n business may be in cahoots, but at least there are still some laws that force the government to be open about its dealings, even if its not always effectively enforced or followed. Aisde, there doesn't seem to be much public push for making soft donations 'n influence of that nature public, so we can lay the blame there on ourselves.

I'm not saying the government is perfect, but it seems to be that private, even public companies, are in an infinately better position to manipulate your opinions and consent, and not be held accountable for it. Hell, MS's potentially illegal OEM agreement is/was marked as a trade secret, so nobody could look at it. What a joke. I'll trust my government more than companies any day of the week.

So it is OK for US govt, but not for S-Africa ? (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679354)

Mind you in the case of the ICANN, it means the control on the *whole* system, not a signle country oriented domain namely : .za.

Quetion : How quick do you think other country would react to a "kidnapping" from ICANN by the US ?

Re:Pot? Is that you? (1)

bobtroy (544448) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679367)

What's the difference? The government and business are pretty much the same thing now.

CARNIVORE HAS LOGGED YOUR SUBVERSIVE POST, COMMIE (-1)

Subject Line Troll (581198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679375)

"more control"? (2, Insightful)

ldspartan (14035) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679168)

How much control does the US government have now? And how much more do they want?

Granted ICANN isn't very accountable right now, and isn't doing the best of jobs, but I don't know if I'd feel better with the government in control of such an important and technically complex venture.

--
Phil

Re:"more control"? (5, Insightful)

drsoran (979) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679210)

Granted ICANN isn't very accountable right now, and isn't doing the best of jobs, but I don't know if I'd feel better with the government in control of such an important and technically complex venture.

Umm, they used to be in control of it. They made some horrible decisions like contracting the work out to Network Solutions, but the US Government did provide a stabilizing force. Nobody knows what the hell ICANN is doing. In all honesty though, the whole thing is kind of a joke. The only reason ICANN has any control is because the DNS admins of the world point to their blessed root servers. If we were to all decide one day to point to another set of servers it would make ICANN, Network Solutions.. err... Verisign, etc. completely irrelevent. So when we hear people bitch we need to take it with a grain of salt. We can fix it, it's just nobody wants to rock the boat.

Re:"more control"? (0)

cilix (538057) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679315)

The problem is that if half the name servers on the internet change to a different set of root servers, then the internet would be a very VERY annoying place to do anything at all. It would be a great idea if everyone did it but when you get right down to it switching to a new set of root servers without the cooperation of the current ones is completely inpractical.

Re:"more control"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679263)

US Government owns the com, net, and org TLDs and probably some of the root nameservers.

The USG basically created ICANN, and it could certainly destroy it or force it to reform. However if the politicians figure this out, they certainly could start meddling in bad ways (regulating porn domain names, etc).

Re:"more control"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679339)

Regulating porn domain names??? Who cares, 99% of porn names point to the same 10 sites anyways... and the other 1% is just recycling their content.

The only reply to this i can think of (1)

spudwiser (124577) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679171)

Well OF COURSE the gov't wants control of ICANN. When you're a dark pessimist like me, you know it's only a matter of time before the net is fully regulated and controlled in all aspects by big brudda. This is step 1. Or step 6 or so, depending on how you look at it.

Re:The only reply to this i can think of (2)

Gannoc (210256) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679200)

When you're a dark pessimist like me, you know it's only a matter of time before the net is fully regulated and controlled in all aspects by big brudda

No matter how pessimistic you are, an elected government still has more accountability than ICANN.

Of course, my big conspiracy theory is that ICANN and corporatations collaborated in killing internet advertising so the only surviving content providers are the big guys.

Re:The only reply to this i can think of (1)

spudwiser (124577) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679268)

No matter how pessimistic you are, an elected government still has more accountability than ICANN.


dont forget the silent S before Elected. ;)

Re:The only reply to this i can think of (2, Insightful)

Ryan Hemage (472215) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679385)

No matter how pessimistic you are, an elected government still has more accountability than ICANN.

How exactly is the US government accountable to a non-US citizen?

Out of the Fying Pan.... (1, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679175)

... and into the fire

Jaysyn

Re:Out of the Fying Pan.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679235)

god, i was thinking the exact same thing

Good news/Bad news (2)

ka9dgx (72702) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679184)

I'm glad that this may force ICANN to open up the process, and get back to business.

I'm worried that this may signal a repeat of the morass in South Africa.

Who knows, we might end up with anarchy after all, and only the future wireless mesh networks holding things together.

--Mike--

Re:Good news/Bad news (1)

mixbsd (574131) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679218)

The internet is already the world's biggest anarchy. If there was any proper regulation over it (and what nationality could claim the right to that?) then spam and DoS would be a thing of the past.

Re:Good news/Bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679293)

The internet is already the world's biggest anarchy. If there was any proper regulation over it (and what nationality could claim the right to that?) then spam and DoS would be a
thing of the past.

so would free speach

In other news... (1, Redundant)

rcs1000 (462363) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679185)

'In a statement released two days before an ICANN subcommittee is scheduled to hold hearings on the national body, Dyson said the change was necessary because the US government has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to citizens, businesses and other key interest groups.'

Re:In other news... (1)

drsoran (979) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679256)

the US government has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to citizens, businesses and other key interest groups.

On the contrary, I think the US Government is very accountable to businesses and other key interest groups. Citizens on the other hand are another issue. They're a particularly sticky issue since the Government has to get enough of their votes to maintain the facade of a democraticly elected government that doesn't cater to special interests. Usually the big business media can keep them under control though.

dumbass americans (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679189)

a majority voted for bush(republicans), means there are more stupid americans than smart ones

Re:dumbass americans (1)

BannSidhe (578466) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679212)

a majority also post as anonymous cuz they don't know the truth. It depends on who you talk to about Bush being voted for more...the popular vote in most areas said that more people voted for Gore. The people don't matter anyway, its called: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Sadly, our founding fathers thought we were too stupid to deal with politics.

Re:dumbass americans (0)

Jon Katz on Tuesday (578508) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679234)

And look - the Electoral College saved all you idiots from actually getting Gore into office - so I guess our founding fathers were right...

Re:dumbass americans (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679283)

the founding fathers were right. the college was a good idea to begin with. but they also intended it as being a temporary method of voting. they expected people to be more knowledgable. but this was never changed the way they intended. Its not the founding father's fault for implementing it, its the reps/senators/presidents since then. it should have been done away with years ago. but not as some people wanted when they found out gore was going to lose, during the election

Re:dumbass americans (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679262)

Actually idiot Bush did not win by majority vote he won by electorial vote. And unlucky for me my vote for him didn't count because I live in an area filled with liberal idiots who think the government owes them something. I guess we can start counting you as one of us now huh...!

Change? But how (2, Interesting)

littlerubberfeet (453565) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679190)

ok, we all realise that ICANN needs to be changed, but the US government? HELL NO. It would make things worse. Instead ICANN should be revised into a democratic body of some sort. It would be difficult to set up, but necciasary. The ISPs, internet users, and buisnesses would all have to be fairly represented. Any ideas?

The US government should not control ICANN, it would be dumped into the FCC and regulated to hell. The internet would become even more difficult to use. Its already hard enough to start a small local ISP, what else will this screw up?

New Top-Level Domain (2, Funny)

mixbsd (574131) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679195)

How long will it be before ICANN are forced to release the .bush TLD?

Re:New Top-Level Domain (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679204)

Dibs on www.wegot.bush!

Re:New Top-Level Domain (3, Funny)

DarkZero (516460) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679294)

I'll take its "sister" (heh heh) site, www.showusyour.bush.

Deja Vu....All over again (1)

johnnyhotrod (528751) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679196)

"ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.'" That sounds like Microsoft. Why don't they introduce a bill to limit their powers?????

Need some context (2, Troll)

The Slashdolt (518657) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679197)

"ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups."

So the government can take this over so they can exceeded their authority, not operate in an open fashion, be dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups. This sounds like the government is just jealous that another entity has similar incompetence.

Um... (4, Insightful)

adam613 (449819) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679201)

"Dozens of other governments have charged ICANN with being too dominated by U.S. interests"

So the solution is to put it under control of the US government. Does this sound as dumb to everyone else as it does to me?

When I hear stuff like this, I start to wonder what the real motivations are...

so... (1, Troll)

paradesign (561561) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679208)

how much is Micro$ofty paying for this one? i assume its part of their plot for world domination, but i could be wrong.

Re:so... (0, Offtopic)

dthable (163749) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679257)

Kind nice that it comes as Microsoft wants to drop support for their old code. So, the game is to have your goverenment control ICANN. Then they declare HTTP and old protocol with many holes and bring in the MSTP (Microsoft Transport Protocol). And then they apply their non-GPL terms to the software. Please tell me it's a dream....

true, but... (0)

cilix (538057) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679213)

Burns said the change was necessary because ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.

This is almost certianly true, but I have serious doubts that the US government is more accountable, more open, or less likely to exceed its authority (though if you give your self enough authority then its hard to exceed it).

Mandrake Forum Goatsed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679215)

It has, [mandrakeforum.org]

Better the Government than a Corporation (2, Interesting)

dfn5 (524972) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679220)

ICANN is more evil than the Government. Granted it would be better if it was transfered to an international body to better reflect the international community that the Internet has become, but the US government is certainly a step in the right direction. Our government is supposedly of, by, and for the people. ICANN doesn't have such obligations. God I hate them.

Re:Better the Government than a Corporation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679311)

correction: govt by, for, of the people whom INS allows. The internet, now, does not belong to one country alone, and neither do TLDs. Imagine the world with each country having their own copy of TLDs and disconnected networks: is this what we want

Re:Better the Government than a Corporation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679330)

ICANN is more evil than the Government. Granted it would be better if it was transfered to an international body to better reflect the international community that the Internet has become, but the US government is certainly a step in the right direction. Our government is supposedly of, by, and for the people. ICANN doesn't have such obligations. God I hate them.
even if they were more evil(which they arn't), they have much less power, if given to the gov't it would just add to thier already too great power.

yeah right (2)

keithmoore (106078) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679335)

people seem to forget that the US is becoming a fairly small portion of Internet users. but some folks in Congress think that we own the Internet.

if ICANN is corrupt we can at least take some comfort in realizing that it has very little power. I wish we could say the same about the US government, which is corrupt but has tremendous power to do harm.

Dilemma (3, Troll)

lindsayt (210755) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679226)

This is a real dilemma. Consider that all the claims the US government makes about ICANN are correct: they're unaccountable, monopolistic, and they certainly don't run things the way they were supposed to. Almost everybody in the /. community can agree that ICANN needs to be reined in.

The US government used to do this job, and back then, it was fine. But of course then the internet was a small space for researchers and academics to exchange ideas.

Our current administration is authoritarian and too concerned about what's moral, correct, and in the best interest of scaring the populace. Free speech == bad in the eyes of the Bush regime.

Add to that the fact that the internet is now worldwide, and the US shouldn't be patrolling the world (though they do it in physical space already - cyber space is a small leap), and it puts us all in a real dilemma.

I guess the real question is, with which stick would you rather be beaten?

Re:Dilemma (4, Informative)

gorilla (36491) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679264)

I don't think the government every really did it. Jon Postel did, and he was paid by the government to do so, but it was really just Jon doing the right thing, and the government not having any interest in it.

Re:Dilemma (1, Insightful)

elefantstn (195873) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679305)

Free speech == bad in the eyes of the Bush regime.


Only on Slashdot could this be described as "informative."

WHINY GOP BITCH. GO FONDLE YOUR GUN AND BIBLE. (-1)

Subject Line Troll (581198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679390)

Re:Dilemma (1, Insightful)

neocon (580579) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679373)

Our current administration is authoritarian and too concerned about what's moral, correct, and in the best interest of scaring the populace. Free speech == bad in the eyes of the Bush regime.

`You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means'.

This world has lots of governments which could be described as `authoritarian regimes' without torturing logic and credibility as you do in your post. Perhaps you'd like to back up your claims here?

Everything old is new again... (2, Interesting)

DLWormwood (154934) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679227)

Talk about coming full circle. ICANN was spun off of the U.S. government so it could be more independant and directly accountable to the Internet's user base; now the latter reason is being used to confiscate ICANN's independance.

I think we of the Internet community have been reminded of a tragedy of human existance... Where you have idealism, you have politics. In trying to de-politicize ICANN, it ended up being an excessively political body instead.

ObTroll: I'm now waiting for the protests from the UN, China, et al, that the U.S. is trying to exercise soverignty over the 'Net. (And the current U.S. administration using the War On Terror(TM) as the justification for doing so.)

Back-door land grab by Big Money, Inc? (2)

swb (14022) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679228)

dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.

Any chance that Big Money, Inc. hasn't gotten what they thought they bought with ICANN and is instead deciding that its money goes a lot farther with the Government instead?

Hey. Remember. (3, Interesting)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679232)

When the US Govt. gave up what power they had over the domain system, it went to shit. Netsol messed it up, ICANN is messing it up even worse.

I say let the NSF do it again.

Re:Hey. Remember. (1)

dthable (163749) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679287)

It's funny that in this day and age where the distributed technologies are ruining the music business that we still can't find a way to remove all central control from the DNS system. Am I really off base with this?

Internet isn't part of the US (4, Insightful)

Diabolical (2110) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679233)

This could mean alot of problems for non US citizens.
When a non US constituant has a valid complaint against a US constituant who will guarantee that his claim will be handled without disdain or prejudice.

If ICANN falls under US law couldn't it be mis-interpreted as the Internet falls under US law? The Internet isn't just from or for the US people.

I think this could be a major problem.

Besides, what has ICANN do to be in this predicament ? Which laws did they break?

Re:Internet isn't part of the US (1)

neocon (580579) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679392)

With due respect, we have this little thing here in the US called `constitutional government with the rule of law'. It has never been a problem for non-US-citizens to bring such cases in US courts -- witness the patent ruling reported here on /. just the other day.

Mind you, this is completely independent of the issue at hand -- ICANN operates under US jurisdiction too, AFAICT...

gov't control (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679237)

I'm sure the gov't will do for ICANN what they did for Amtrack.

That's the catch with ICANN (5, Insightful)

jht (5006) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679244)

ICANN may be an international body, but much of their authority came courtesy of the US government. It would take a major consensus from virtually all ISP's (in the US and the rest of the world as well) to allow a different body to take control of DNS. Since ICANN's authority came via the US government, theoretically it can be taken away as well. Given the way ICANN operates, that may not be a Bad Thing. It might be nice to have a "do-over" with ICANN and try and get it right this time.

Of course, if Jon Postel hadn't passed on far before his time, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

One interesting point in the article: the GAO rep said that domain name registration had fallen from about $50 to $10 due to ICANN. Check me if I'm wrong here, but I very clearly remember that when NSI started charging for domain names (I also still remember when they were free) they charged $35/year. Not $50. And that's still the price from them today (though they offer longer-term discounts) - other registrars are free to charge what they want and generally undercut NSI.

Re:That's the catch with ICANN (1)

10Brett-T (11197) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679336)

It was $100 for the first two years. It only dropped to $70 (first two years) when the competing registrars started popping up.

Non-US People (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679246)

I don't know about anybody else, but as a person from a country other than the US, I don't like this idea one bit.

Sure, ICANN isn't doing the greatest job, but at least they are theoreticaly an open, international organization that I could effect somehow.

If the US government takes it over, then all users outside of the US would get no say, unless we were aloud to vote in US elections somehow. Also, is this legal to do, or is there a case to be made in international court based on the fact the ICANN and the internet are not limited to the US?

Well, i will say this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679248)

They are at least trying to do that for the right reasons.

Whether that will turn out to translate to right action we will have to wait and see.

After all, the french and russian revolutions were done for the most right reasons imaginable, and they both ended with fanatical, mass-murdering dictator states trying to take over the world.

Well, let's see where this one goes. I would hope they would put a LOT of thought into this before they put ICANN under the government umbrella, though. I'd like to think they would just somehow force ICANN to be more accountable to internet users worldwide.

validity of this action? (1)

Johann Public (542327) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679252)

That's just ridiculous.

The Internet was designed to be an open system.
Putting a big part of it like ICANN under the control of the government of just one country is wrong.
The US govenment, or the government of any country, should not have exclusive jurisdiction over the Internet.

Why is the US government taking it upon itself to regulate such things? The Internet is not the property of the United States.
It belongs to the entire world, and it should be operated at the very least by the entire international community.

i agree (n/t) (0)

cockroach2 (117475) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679331)

(n/t)

The stupid thing is... (4, Insightful)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679258)

The DNS problem is a simple one to solve.

There are two choices.

1) We are going to keep adding TLDs.
2) We are NOT going to keep adding TLDs.

Period.

The only other time to change a TLD is if the geopolitical world changes, and we need more (or less) cctlds.

Other than that, maintain the root servers, and leave it the hell alone.

Is good, comrade! (1)

Luggage (250884) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679267)

It seems just a bit odd, though, that a government that spent roughtly 45 years in a hostle stalemate with the forces of communism (more if you count minor US intervention during the Russian Civil War) should go about nationalizing any sort of independant business. Now, change can be good, but given the age of some of the senators, it still seems unnervingly like doublethink.

What? (1, Offtopic)

King Of Chat (469438) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679271)

Are you sure you want Dubya in charge of anything to do with numbers?

Re:What? (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679285)

Well, if it has numbers, it's a budget. You can't argue with that logic.

No big brother (1)

YanceyAI (192279) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679278)

The whole paranoid big brother thing does not scare me. Fortunately (and sometimes unfortunately), the government is just not efficient enough to really be all that ominous.

No need to panic just yet (5, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679282)

He "said he likely would introduce a bill". Hmmm. First the bill has to be introduced to the Senate. Then he needs co-sponsors. Then it has to get through committee where it may be amended, and he's a Republican and the Democrats control the Senate. Then the it has to be scheduled for a vote. Then the Senate debates (and possibly amends) it. Then it's voted on. Then the same process in the House. Then the House ans Senate versions have to be reconciled, and the reconciled version has to be voted on. Then the President has to sign it.

This all has to happen during this session, which only has 50 working days left, and which has much else (such as the Department of Homeland Security) on its plate.

Re:No need to panic just yet (2)

Diabolical (2110) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679389)

Perhaps just the reason to BE afraid of this. It could be treated as just a small bill which has some credibility so just sign the damn thing and begone with it, move over to the big stuff...

oh no!! (0, Flamebait)

hummer357 (545850) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679297)

Sen. Burns is ... a Socialist???

Hmmm, seems like a grab for power.... (1)

NickNiel (456061) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679312)

It seems to me that this is an unnecessary grasp for power. The article didn't mention that there were any specific reforms in mind, just that ICANN wasn't doing a good job. The US government should be delegating, NOT taking over organizations just because they have some influence on the internet. I think the government should work with the group already in place and lobby for specific changes in the way ICANN operates, rather than take the organization over and waste more of the taxpayers' money providing a service to the community that is already being provided (and probably won't be improved by intervention).

Why US??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679317)

I do not see why the US should control this, do they think they own the World?

When will you realize that you're just another brick in the wall?

Re:Why US??? (0)

cockroach2 (117475) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679363)

I do not see why the US should control this, do they think they own the World?

yes, they do think so.

Re:Why US??? (-1)

Serial Troller (556155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679366)

Yes, the US is just another country. Unfortunately it's a country with a dick the size of the whole planet, and it insists on sticking its dick damn near everywhere. Maybe someone will remind the US to keep its dick to itself by crashing a 767 into the A-Root servers this time.

Who is this guy? (1)

rickerbr (112947) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679318)

C. Montgomery Burns???????? Conrad??? Excellent Smithers!!!! Now we can find out which state Springfield is in!

Re:Who is this guy? (1)

Lxy (80823) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679345)

It's in Missouri.

This was reveles on a recent re-run I saw, when Principal Skinner made the comment of "the worst school in Missouri".

Then again, I missed the next line, so it could have been a decoy.

Re:Who is this guy? (0)

TweeKinDaBahx (583007) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679365)

Yeah, but his next line was something about how the school wasn't even in missouri...

Re:Who is this guy? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679383)

"Thats why we had the school moved here", was his next reply.
So, the mystery continues!

Senator Burns is right but this is a poor solution (2, Flamebait)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679319)

Everyone knows ICANN is scum. [icannwatch.org] See also this [cdt.org] and this [netpolicy.com] .

And of course the UDRP [icann.org] is dreadful [dnlr.com] .

However, this proposal reads to me less like a solution to ICANN's well documented track records of cronyism and broken promises, and more like a US powergrab, orchestrated by Republicans who oppose international institutions on principle - a position which has certain merits but which ought to be promoted honestly. Of course, I may be jumping to conclusions since no specifics of the bill are yet available.

For all u eurotrash: In the US, instead of Eurosceptics, we have Republicans, who, instead of hating the EU, hate the UN. American leftists generally support the UN and oppose the WTO. We don't have an international umbrella organisation for both ends of the political spectrum to despise (unless you count the federal guvmint.)

What this really means (1)

snubber1 (56537) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679325)

You do all realize that this action was most likely started because some big-time lobbyists down at the capitol asked (read: paid) some senators to start this. Most likely big business wants more freedom to do as the please in taking away 'copyrighted' domains (read: microsoftsux.com is going bye bye) among other things.

All for the greater good of the public (copyright doubleplus good!)

Great, how noble of them (2)

Uttles (324447) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679327)

Burns said the change was necessary because ICANN has exceeded its authority, does not operate in an open fashion, and is dangerously unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups.

Perfect. So when the government takes over, it still won't be accountable to internet users, it will be slightly accountable to the businesses that contribute the most, and it will be at the whim of the special interest groups. This is just what the internet needs.

ICANN isn't accountable... (0)

creative_name (459764) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679340)

..to anyone so the government should take over. Because as we all know, Big Brother is much, much more accountable to the individual than any sort of corporation.

If you can't see the logic in that, you must have your eyes open.

Give it to Amish... (2, Interesting)

whitelabrat (469237) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679346)

Great! Just what we need. The Govt and it's beauracracy and politics. How about just slapping ICANN around a bit, so they get their act together.

I'd rather see the Amish in control of ICANN

ICANN't.. (1)

Jacer (574383) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679349)

stand the idea of the us government in control of ICANN. Censorship would rampant with mom & pop out to make it a morally healthy place for their children. if anyone is taking over, have it be the UN or something.....

Not a new idea. (1)

dunkerz (443211) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679351)

100 years ago, the British government had control of everything.. it's nothing new.

But this can only be good from a US citizen's point of view.
Don't forget the rest of the (western at least) world. :)

Gov't Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3679356)

While I do believe the gov't can do a better job than ICANN, once the gov't gets control, I doubt an autonomous group will ever again be able to control DNS registration, ever again. ICANN is flawed, but I would rather see ICANN torched from the ground up and rebuilt again on the original democratic principals it was founded than surrender (almost surely permanently) the whole thing to the US.

Rock and a hard place (1)

beleg777 (551987) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679359)

Well, ICANN does need to be reigned in. Unfortunately giving the government control is the wrong solution, as it will just make it more of a political tool. Perhaps they should just break up the current board and force a permanent democratic election process for board memebers. Of course, I don't know if it is within the power of the government to do so.

Just Go To The Meetings (5, Funny)

m_evanchik (398143) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679360)

I've had enough of you whiners and complainers. ICANN operates in a fair and free fashion. Their meeting are open to the public.

Just because you missed their last meeting in Ghana, doesn't mean it's not too late catch the bus over to Romania.

I understand that the next meeting will be on the dark side of the Moon. They don't want the pale Lunarians feeling left out of the loop.

More US unilaterism (2, Interesting)

Jeppe Salvesen (101622) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679377)

They're only trying to maximize US control of the internet. If you consider the history of the current administration on international matters, you could argue that they certainly do not represent the world opinion any more than the ICANN does.

If we really want a good ICANN, reform UN and then put ICANN under their control. That way, the rest of us won't be f*cked if the next administration decides only US Citizens can control .com, .net and .org domains.

OOOOOooooiiiiiii (1)

Viceice (462967) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679380)

What about the rest of us outside the US? We have a stake in it too.

What's the problem? (2, Funny)

OgdEnigmaX (535667) | more than 12 years ago | (#3679387)

The US is operating well within its rights in this situation. It's a simple case of eminent domain... Unlike other sigs, I can speak with an English accent!
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...