×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

204 comments

How can they get away with this. (5, Funny)

Performer Guy (69820) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574293)

Someone should hold them accountable.... oh wait!

Re:How can they get away with this. (2, Funny)

zanerock (218113) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574333)

Maybe the real question then, is "How can't they get away with this?" (Insert smiling vaudville danger with cane and jazz-hands.)

Re:How can they get away with this. (2)

Performer Guy (69820) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574396)

Exactly. They've just removed the last vestiges of accountability. Before now most of them weren't accountable, now they don't even want to associate with anyone who IS accountable. Now they need to be disbanded before they turn into the secretive and beaurocratic money pit they aspire to be.

FP? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574294)

First post on this lovely Samhain evening? I think so?

Re:FP? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574371)

It might seem like fun and games to you, if eternal damnation of your everlasting soul is your idea of fun and games, but the sweetest candy in the world can't match the bitter truth behind the devil's own holiday. Read here [chick.com] for more information, and remember that only living in the Word will save you from the fire and brimstone. Give your life over to worship, and the first posts will flow like a river of honey.

Re:FP? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574401)

rivers of honey don't flow in winter.

Re:FP? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574529)

the site doesn't flow too well either. his god lacks sufficient bandwith. conversion aborted.

Can anyone explain why this is significant? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574299)

I'm not trolling, just asking what I think is a legit question.

Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574304)

No.. nobody can explain why it is significant.

FUCK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574310)

I guess I'll never know why this is significant.

FROWNIE.

Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574319)

Your question assumes that it is significant to begin with.

Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (5, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574422)

Well, I'll assume you mean this as a legitimate question. I am not the most qualified person to answer the question, but I'll tell you what I do know. The ICANN ultimately sets up procedures and policies for registering domain names and controlling the allocation and deallocation of all TLDs (top level domains, like .com). Why do they control this? Because everybody has always agreed that they do. So to say you are connected to "the Internet" you really need to be pointing to a DNS server that syncs up with the root DNS servers approved by ICANN.


When does this get relevant? Well, when somebody disagrees about who owns a domain. It's nice that there are standard procedures for disputing these things. And remember when it used to cost some ungodly amount per year to register domains? Then along came OpenSRS and lots of registrars that pushed prices down, opening the web up to further colonization. This had to be approved and initiated by ICANN. The problem? ICANN already operates essentially without answering to any government or external authority, and the "citizens" of the Internet have no real voice in what goes on at ICANN. What if ICANN decides to go back to granting register.com a monopoly on new domain registrations? Well, they won't because the backlash would be huge, I imagine, but I am trying to give an example of what they theoretically could do.


Also little issues like the transition to IPv6 are governed to some extent by the ICANN, and that matters too - I for one would like my toaster and household appliances to have IP addresses in my frigging lifetime. I'm sure you can find more things the ICANN is responsible for at their website. Or do a Google search. Then tell me if you think maybe the users of the Internet who ultimately pay for its growth and the taxpayers of the nations that set up the original infrastructure for its growth ought to have some say in how it is managed.

Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574506)

Nice job. Respond to an obvious troll and get modded up anyways. Nice copy and paste, too!

Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574554)

Well, I was working on the assumption that though he appeared to be a troll, there are always some people who don't know what the significance of the ICANN is. Furthermore, I didn't copy and paste anything - I just wrote off the top of my head what I know of the ICANN's responsibilities and relevance - like I said, I'm not an expert on the topic, but I've certainly dealt with some domain name problems in the past, enough to give me a healthy respect for the importance of ICANN to maintaining a fair and orderly Internet.

Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (4, Insightful)

Mnemia (218659) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574518)

Remember when it used to be free to register domains?

Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (-1, Offtopic)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574545)

KARMA WHORE

Please mod this down, 'cuz I said so.

k?thx!

Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574609)

One correction to your post. ICAAN does answer to the United States Government. Everyone likes to think we operate in this fantasy land that the internet is open and free. If the US government wanted ICAAN to make a change they would comply. Would the US do this? Probably not due to international flack but they do have the authority to do so. ICAAN was created by the US to get the US government out of managing the internet. As it became more global the Administration realized that for appearances the Government needed to take a step back.

Re:Can anyone explain why this is significant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574445)

I know it IS a troll everyone, but...

It's because...

ICANN, the most powerful single entity on the Internet, the single focal point in an otherwise decentralized global network, is now effectively unanswerable to anyone but

That's significant [icannwatch.com].

Kindly to be fucking off, dickweed. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574474)

I know it IS a troll everyone, but...

Fuck off. I wasn't trolling. I was asking a legitimate question. The editors are the real trolls (especially michael).

Lord Vader has disolved the Senate (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574312)

The last remnants of the old republic have been swept away...

Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574323)

the emperor dissolved the senate! Geez! Get your shit straight before you try to be all cool.

Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate (3, Funny)

schlach (228441) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574469)

No, the President dissolved the Senate!

"Fear will keep the local systems in line." [cnn.com]

"The Senate has got a lousy record on my judges. We need to change the Senate for a lot of reasons, and one reason is to make sure we've got a sound judiciary," he said Monday in Denver.

"This comprehensive plan calls for a clean start..." added the President's lapdog, Ari Fleisher.

(ok so it's not as bad as i made it sound, but it's still pretty funny, in context)

Re:Lord Vader has disolved the Senate (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574340)

You're a fucking idiot.

No more parasitic "civil servants"? Good. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574451)

Too many pigs have had their snouts in the public trough for too long. It's high time we dragged Congress out into the street and shot the whole pack of thieves. Leave their rotting carcasses for the dogs to eat; let the poor take a bite if they wish. They'll need their strength. Without Congress to give them their handouts, they'll all be getting jobs (oh horror of horrors! Oh, the humanity!)

Let the productive members of society run things, and you'll have a productive society with wealth and freedom for everybody. Let the slavemasters and parasites grab the reins of power, and you'll have a nation of parasitic slaves. Is that what you want? It's what you've got. So are you happy?

From the article: (5, Funny)

Hayzeus (596826) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574318)

...a move that critics complained could make the group indifferent to ordinary users and hurt innovation.

Right. With this latest move, unresponsiveness now becomes a distinct possibility. I'd really hate to see ICANN become indifferent to ordinary users...

Re:From the article: (1)

jhunsake (81920) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574356)

What planet have you been living on these past few years? Something has to be responsive before it can become unresponsive!

Re:From the article: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574455)

Hmmmm... perhaps you may want to look here [dictionary.com]

Re:From the article: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574490)

Hmmmm... perhaps you may want to look here [goatse.cx]

Re:From the article: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574576)

Hmmmm... perhaps you may want to look here [goatse.cx]

Re:From the article: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574605)

Hmmmm... perhaps you may want to look here [goatse.cx]

Re:From the article: (1)

sakeneko (447402) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574509)

...a move that critics complained could make the group indifferent to ordinary users and hurt innovation.
Right. With this latest move, unresponsiveness now becomes a distinct possibility. I'd really hate to see ICANN become indifferent to ordinary users...

No sh*t^H^H^H^Hkidding. <sigh> Still, this change will mean that the public has even less access to the ICANN board. At least now, they have to listen when Karl Auerbach objects to some of their more idiotic decisions.

While I'm disappointed at this, though, at the same time I can't say that I'm surprised. ICANN was set up as an essentially non-representative body from the outset. It isn't surprising that ICANN's real constituency has grown restless having to give at least some heed to what the elected board members had to say. :/

I'm not sure whether the solution is a complete change in the ICANN charter and ground-up revamp of its mission, composition, and methods, or shutting down the organization and starting over from scratch. Since the two would probably be close to the same thing, maybe it doesn't matter.

So, who wants to bell the cat?

Re:ICANN Ditches Ordinary Users (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574579)

Headline I'd rather see: Ordinary Users Ditch ICANN

I'm sure I'm not alone.

Information wants to be free... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574320)

to call you it's bitch. All your board-members are belong to us!

Re:Information wants to be free... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574428)

its

Jay and Silent Bob, fuckers! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574334)

Fuck, Fuck, Fuck, Fuck, Mother, Motherufck, Mother, Motherfuck, Motherfuck, Motherfuck,Mother, Mother, Fuck, Fuck, Noige, Noige, Noige, 1.2.3.. Smoking Weed, Smoking Weed, Smoking Weed Weed Weed, Doing Coke, Drinking Beers, Rolling Fatties, Smoking Blunts, Who smokes the blunts? We smoke the Blunts. Rolling Blunts and Smoking Blunts, Hey can I have a Dime Bag.... 15 bucks little man, put that shit in my hand. If the money doesn't show, then you'll owe me owe me owe. JUNGLE LOOOOVEE! OWWEEOWWEEOOHHH. I wanta wanta know ya know ya!!!

Did you notice this? (5, Insightful)

Milo Fungus (232863) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574336)

Critics said the revisions were aimed at getting rid of dissenting board members who say the group is out of touch with Internet users.

Did this line jump out at anyone else? They were tired of people telling them that they were out of touch with internet users, so they decided to stop allowing internet users to elect members of the board. Isn't that like cutting off your leg because of an ingrown toenail?

Or am I just out of touch with the politics here?

Re:Did you notice this? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574390)

You're out of touch, fucktard!

Re:Did you notice this? (4, Funny)

bleckywelcky (518520) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574415)


Not exactly. I would say it is more like having a lobotomy because your brain keeps telling you it's not good to eat toxic waste, but you happen to like the taste of it.

Re:Did you notice this? (5, Funny)

mttlg (174815) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574436)

Isn't that like cutting off your leg because of an ingrown toenail?

Actually, it's more like cutting off your feet with a rusty pocketknife because they hurt when you walk barefoot on broken glass and rusty nails.

That was Monday's Karl Auerbach story (5, Informative)

billstewart (78916) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574503)

They never wanted public participation; it was always pretty much for show, and the way they treated Karl was partly because they never wanted public participation and partly because he'd not only been elected by the public to push them into letting *actual*Internet*users* have some influence over ICANN's directions, which (as I believe I may have mentioned) they didn't want, but went beyond that to actually *try* to have some influence over ICANN, or at least force some shadow of openness or accountability onto ICANN, which they also didn't want. So when they got rid of him, they made it clear they didn't want him to be replaced; this is just formalizing it.

Re:That was Monday's Karl Auerbach story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574634)

He's still listed [icann.org] on ICANN's website. Is he no longer a board member? When did this happen? Do you have a link?

Re:Did you notice this? (2, Insightful)

raretek (215909) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574572)

"Or am I just out of touch with the politics here?"

No, you've obviously have been hit way too hard by a clue hammer.

Unfortunately, to understand ICANN, you have to be hopelessly without clue and/or possessed with the knowledge that whoever disagrees with you is wrong. It also helps to be on the corporate dole...

They want public participation (5, Insightful)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574337)

They want public participation only as long as the public blindly follows what the board wants to do and not question their edicts.

If ICANN had any interest in real public participation, then we would never had heard of Karl Auerbach as he would not have to file a lawsuit against ICANN [slashdot.org] to see the books.

Unifying, isn't it? (2)

SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574633)


They want public participation only as long as the public blindly follows what the board wants to do and not question their edicts.


That universal statement applies to US Presidential elections, capitalism, protests, this very website, and many other aspects of the modern world.

The only true way to freedom for any institution is continuous open revolt -- ICANN should be protested everywhere they go like the WTO and the World Bank are, as they are nothing but a dictatorial politburo posing as a public institution that must be overthrown.

I think it's time... (1)

tuxlove (316502) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574338)

... for someone to start a parallel namespace run in true freeware style. ICANN is an abomination.

OpenNIC (4, Informative)

yerricde (125198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574358)

a parallel namespace run in true freeware style.

You mean like OpenNIC [unrated.net]?

Re:OpenNIC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574535)

I suspect that we should consider creating a slightly different form of ipv6 with one extra byte of address space. Yes, that would increase packet size, but it would also allow for the building and controlling of a new internet. By adding one extra byte, it becomes possible to embed Ipv4/6 packets inside and still have a new network being set up. With that, it is easier to take back the net

Re:I think it's time... (1)

zanerock (218113) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574364)

Perhaps, if all profit oriented corporations are abominations. But, that's another discussion.

The problem isn't ICANN, it's the fact that we let the thing be run by ICANN in the first place.

Wired ICANN take (4, Interesting)

Badger (1280) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574355)

If you read the Wired article [wired.com], they have some interesting points:

  1. I love how the European representative is much more sanguine about this move than Karl. Makes me laugh them /. trolls whine about how ICANN is a US puppet.
  2. If you take this article seriously, ICANN dies a painful death come June. What will replace it is another question.

Are they on crack? (4, Insightful)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574366)

"This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now,"

Uh? How does getting rid of publicly voted board members, and then buffering yourself from the risk of being voted out make one "more plugged-in to the community"???

Do they actually believe the bull that they are shoveling? Do they actually expect us to believe it?

From the article (5, Funny)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574378)

Lynn said he would recommend adding three new Internet domain names, though he said there were no plans yet on when to create them or what they would be called.

hmmm, how about

.cant .touch .this

or
.we .the .man

or
.out .of .touch

or
....

So long .free, hello .chains (1)

loucura! (247834) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574393)

Well, now that the naming conventions of the internet are in the hands of big business, and there is no recourse us 'ordinary' users can use to fight it, does this mean that we have to go offline and go outside?

It's cold out there.

Granted, it just got a whole lot colder in here. It is too bad that an alternate registry cannot gain enough momentum to actually compete versus ICANN.

So long .free, we'll miss you. Certainly .regime won't be so bad, it will be 'efficient', and 'autonomous'. It's quite ironic that they held the meeting in China.

irony (1)

WinPimp2K (301497) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574542)

No, China is a fitting place for the meeting.
Gopher Gulch (or whatever Ayn Rand's utopian place was) would be an ironic place for the meeting.

Thank God for this; it's long overdue. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574402)

ICANN has serious matters to tackle. For years, they've been harrassed endlessly by every crackpot do-gooder who's got an irrational axe to grind "in the public interest". That will now end.

In case you haven't thought any of this through, how exactly do all these "public-interest" nutcases differ from any other special interest group demanding changes in public policy to benefit a small minority? The entire vast regulatory framework currently strangling business in the United States is the result of such gratuitous and irresponsible interference. Ask yourself for a moment why Hong Kong, for its size, is so much more successful than the United States. Stumped? It's easy: No unnecessary regulation of business. Parasites with loud mouths and too much time on their hands are not permitted to seize control and make destructive laws whose only purpose is to drag everybody else down to the parasites' degraded level.

Listen closely. This is a law of nature: When somebody makes grand noises about "the public interest", he is trying to pick your pocket. There are no exceptions.

Re:Thank God for this; it's long overdue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574468)

If you're being sarcastic, I hate you. Otherwise, kudos and big ups.

And having dropped all pretention of fairness (5, Funny)

3-State Bit (225583) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574403)

or democracy, ICANN begins the process of subverting the Internet toward its own nefarious private goals.

In keeping with these changes, ICANN announces that it will be changing its name to reflect its new mission to become:

Universal Controller of All Network Traffic.

(Headline: ICANN changes name to UCANT).

Credit. [slashdot.org]

Re:And having dropped all pretention of fairness (5, Funny)

uberstool (470348) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574672)

Slashdot has also changed it's name to

66.35.250.150

Crooks (4, Insightful)

dh003i (203189) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574411)

Really, how are they any different from Saddam Hussein? Rised to power through illegitimate means; eliminate true public elections; now organize these scam elections which are just like the elections in Iraq.

ICANN has no legitimacy. If they did, ALL of their board member's would be publicly elected. Unless ALL of their board member's are publicly elected, the entire organization is a illegitimate crock.


"This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now," Lynn said


What a fucking moron. How the fuck is it possible to be more "plugged-in to the community" by eliminating public elections? It isn't. The only possible reason for eliminating public elections is to dodge all responsibility, so you can never be held accountable.

As for more efficient, yes, it will be more efficient at making immoral decisions; just like Saddam Hussein is very efficient at quickly deciding how to execute his enemies. Its really tough to make immoral decisions when you have to worry about public elections. Much easier to just cave in to business demands when you don't have to be held accountable to the public at large.

Saddam Hussein was re-elected recently. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574538)

He got 100% of the vote. I repeat: 100%. It is well known, of course, that Iraq is not a US puppet. It is a free nation, of free people who have freely chosen their leader and support him freely. The US is a corrupt dictatorship; the 2000 election was stolen. This criminality taints all allies and satellites of the USA, but Iraq is clean. The USA is a criminal rogue nation, an arrogant bully. This is axiomatic, and easily proven by the USA's great unearned wealth. This criminality also taints all the USA's allies, but again Iraq is morally clean. The USA believes in guilt by association, and that criminal practice too taints all of its allies and associates. This is why the killing of Australian citizens is a justified act of self-defense, just like the killing of American citizens: All share guilt for the same horrific crimes against humanity. But here too, Iraq is clean.

Spare me the childish red herrings about Kurds and Kuwait; you can't win the argument by changing the subject and I am not interested in your racist anti-Islamic propaganda.

Re:Crooks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574559)

If they have no legitimacy then why do you use their Name servers?

P.S. That's why they are in power. Use a different DNS Root and you will be free of ICANN.

Re:Crooks (3, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574583)

Really, how are they any different from Saddam Hussein?
Saddam retains power through force. ICANN retains power through apathy and inertia.

Proposal for competition in domain name services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574418)

I propose to incorporate the name of the domain lookup service as part of the URL. For example:
http://slashdot.org/ becomes http://icann:slashdot.org/ or http://slashdot.org:icann/ or maybe http://slashdot.org.icann/ . I'm sure someone out there has a better idea how to modify the syntax to add a DNS lookup service into a URL. If a DNS service is not provided in a URL, then the default DNS server is used (it would end up being a network setting). I'm willing to start adding that sort of functionality to Linux systems.

While we are talking about revamping the domain name system, if someone starts up an independent domain lookup service, now's a good time to drop the meaningless .org, .com, and .net extentions for that new service.

Irony Meter is pegging... (4, Insightful)

Black Art (3335) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574419)

Does anyone else find it ironic that this announcement was made in Shanghai?

Re:Irony Meter is pegging... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574555)

Personally, I think that they should have done it from Saddam's Castle or the current white house.

Good (1, Troll)

drhairston (611491) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574421)

For things like nations, elections may be all well and good (though I fail to see that that's been proven yet) but for small institutions on a limited budget, elections are a monumental pain in the arse. I hope my local Board of Regents follows suit. Putting University funding and appointment behind close doors would stop a whole rash of problems, from students smearing us in their rag of a newspaper to inquisitive alumni attempting to get their shills elected.

So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574430)

the users got Shanghaied.

The good thing (2)

jukal (523582) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574448)

if you want one, might be that without direct elections the might manage to make up a board of directors which actually can face a consensus on matters. In some sense, the result of the previous mechanism was partially a competition for getting the most press coverage... a big percent of people just don't even consider unknown individuals as a candidate.

Uh, so what can we do? (1)

bludstone (103539) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574450)

So... What can we do about it?

It seems like theyve shut us out of all legit, legal options. Time to break out the brass knuckles and get ready for a serious physical beatdown.

Im kidding of course.. but seriously, what do we do now?

Its the plan (2, Interesting)

TerryAtWork (598364) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574459)

This is a part of the long term plan of the business community to appropriate the Internet after it flew in totally under their radar.

They want to turn the whole digital thing into push technology in the hands of a few - like TV.

Im tired (1)

cranos (592602) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574464)

You know what? I am tired of hearing about ICANNs bullshit.

I am still confused as to why an American company can possibly be allowed to control the Internet. I know the history so don't tell me about ARPANet and the rest, the simple fact is, the Internet is no longer an American institution, it has gone global.

Why not set up an International body to take over from ICANN? A body with full participation of the Internet Community from the start.

Ah forget it, why would they do that, it would only give power to the people.

Zero public participation = zero credibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574470)

Enough said.

ICANN because ICANN that's why! (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574476)

Okay, this situation has become quite surreal. There isn't even any sneaking around on this thing they're doing. They're clearly going well outside of what they were created to do... way out of bound on this.

Frankly, I do not want to see people writing their senators on this one though. I want to see an internet-elected system that everyone has dreamed of and then MAKE IT HAPPEN. Once we have a respected and responsible internet name counsil created along with a good base set of servers, then we simply persuade everyone to switch over.

Okay... I see the first hurdle that will be difficult -- getting people to switch. It can be done people. If there is no interruption in normal usage, it can be done. Further, once we have a good strong and accountable body in place with all the rules and regs ironed out in such a way that everyone agrees it to be a fair system, THEN we start crying to our senators and stuff. Show them that not only is ICANN screwed up, but we have something created to replace them today. Once they see that we offer more than a complaint, but a solution, how can they easily say no?

We can make a huge petition to push this thing through. They have to listen.

Complaints alone will not correct this problem. If you leave it to someone else to fix it, it will not be fixed in a way you will appreciate.

Important Stuff: (0, Offtopic)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574483)

  • Please try to keep posts on topic.
  • Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
  • Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
  • Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
  • Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Is my "karma" gone yet?

Cool!

From the article... (2)

El_Smack (267329) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574489)

"Now that LACNIC (the Latin and Central America Registry) has signed up with ICANN there is pressure on the Africans to double their efforts to finalise AFRINIC."

Shouldn't they really call themselves "AFRICANN"? Come on, that seems like a no brainer.

Re:From the article... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574528)

I was thinking more along the lines of NIGGENIC, or perhaps SPEARCHUCKANN.

There's a difference (3, Insightful)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574497)

This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster ...
Efficient and effective are not always the same thing. After all, something humming away in an idle loop and not trying to do anything else can be 100% efficient...
... and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now
Nothing like removing community input to increase reactiveness to the community. Er, well, sort-of...

Wasnt' this always a sham anyway? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574521)

I mean, there wasn't any public participation for most of ICANN's history, and then when they decided to have publicly elected board members they only made 5 of 18 seats elected. The public members would always be a minority and outvoted by the vested interests.

I don't see this as any big loss. Just more honest.

The other half of the question (3, Insightful)

airrage (514164) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574574)

Lynn states, "We want to welcome and bring to the table all that are interested in issues that concern ICANN," Of course, the other half of this sentence is, "..without really taking your comments seriously."

Broadcast Spectrum (5, Interesting)

OzPhIsH (560038) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574581)

Now I'm just wondering how long will it take for the board our our Government or someone to sell out vast proportions of available internet bandwidth or addressing to large media companies "in the spirit to increase the public benefit" much like what happened to another of our 'public' resources, the television broadcast spectrum. The last thing I want to see is "internet TV brought to you by MSNBC" and the rest of us getting 5 minutes of public access... The public should be involved in what direction public resources take, either directly or indirectly. Getting cut out of the loop means we're gonna get screwed somehow, somewhere down the line.

Shanghai'd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574582)

We've been shanghai'd by ICANN!

coloreds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574600)

I think slashdot just misread the press release, and it's just that negroes don't get to vote anymore.

History Repeats Itself... (5, Insightful)

avgjoe62 (558860) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574619)

"This will make ICANN a much more efficient and effective organization that will get things done better and faster and be more plugged-in to the community than we are now," Lynn said

That's right. Mussolini got the trains running on time and Hitler got the Autobahns built. I guess we need a dictatorship to get stuff done efficiently and effectively...

who cares (0)

hfastedge (542013) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574626)

Sometimes its good to let them take care of themselves.

Its not like it prevents them from being accountable (which is all that really matters) when they screw things up.

Although on the other hand, this is one of the true places where u could exercise amazing democracy with internet voting for them.

Calm down (3, Insightful)

sevensharpnine (231974) | more than 11 years ago | (#4574635)

All the fear mongering here is somewhat misplaced, at least considering the long term. ICANN simply generates a bunch of policies that people *voluntarily* choose to abide by. ICANN has little in the way of enforcement. What legal settlements have transpired have been caused by contracts/agreements (AFAIK) and not laws stating ICANN owns/controls anything. ICANN has no teeth. This is nothing that can't be solved by an alert internet populace. See also: openNIC.

What's stopping us from creating our own DNS? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574649)

Why not?

Why don't they just change their name... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4574675)

Why don't they just change their name already from "ICANN" to "UCANNT"?
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...