US Govt Wants to Control ICANN? 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.'"
And...? (Score:1, Insightful)
Pot? Is that you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind of like... the government??
"more control"? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Um... (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:"more control"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Internet isn't part of the US (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Pot? Is that you? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the catch with ICANN (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The stupid thing is... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
No need to panic just yet (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Dilemma (Score:1, Insightful)
Only on Slashdot could this be described as "informative."
Re:Dilemma (Score:1, Insightful)
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?
Re:The only reply to this i can think of (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2, Insightful)
With due respect, of course the government is subject to our laws. That's what it means to live in a constitutional republic with rule of law and specific limitations on government. I'm not saying there aren't abuses, and we must always be vigilant to fight them, but to say the government is not bound by law is simply incorrect, and is a way of knuckling under to such abuses as do occur.
By the way, take a look at what is required in order to ammend the constitution [cornell.edu]. This isn't something that government can `just do'.
NO!! (Score:2, Insightful)
The US government used to do this job, and back then, it was fine. Really. 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 *reall* 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? Mine...or theirs?
The Gov's beak is dry on this one... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the key here is "businesses and other key interest groups". In other words, the government doesn't get any kickbacks because they don't have any control over what ICANN does. Seriously, if the government had the "internet users" interests at heart, MS wouldn't be in the position it is in now, and they would have come down on them like a ton of bricks. And arguing that the government is more/less corrupt than businesses is like shopping for dildos - you aren't looking for the one that feels the best, you are looking for the one that hurts the least.
I fear the gov't because. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
I can boycott corporations, but the closest thing to a boycott of the US gov't is illegal.
The US government is the prime facilitator of most of the things coprorations do that we see as Evil. (DMCA, military action in Guatemala & Nicaragua, Saipan, heck, the amount of time copyrights are good for magically gets longer every time Disnay's copyright in a certain mouse is about to expire.)
History has shown that these limits on the power of the government that you speak of are fungible. Usually, they are only funged a little bit, for example with limitations on free speech w/r/t certain four-letter words in public. Sometimes, they're funged a lot more. For example with the WWII internment camps.
I'm still not convinced that the US government values me as anything other than a contributor to the GDP, in the same way that I know large corporations only care about me as a chump that may have a few loose dollars in his pocket.
As for the laws that limit the gov't, the constitution and laws in this country only hold water because our governing body agrees they do.
Abraham Lincoln blatantly ignored the Constitution and a few other major laws, I'm sure. The gov't can do that just as easily today. At least corporations have a government standing above their heads waiting to put them in their place (or at least make a pathetic attempt to do so) every random interval unit of time or so. That may not be worth two shits in a can, but it's a psychological comfort.
Who's going to stop this abulatory conglomeration of tinker toys and assault rifles we Americans like to pretend is a government if it stretches things too far?
Changes in the TLD system i'd like to see (Score:2, Insightful)
ccTLD's should be for entities that actually reside in that country, not because for example
.org was for non-profit organizations
.net was for internet infrastructure
.com was for US companies
I know that
everything should get a 2 letter ccTLD *unless* it's a global entity.
rules on what type of entity is being registered should be strictly enforced:
e.g. slashdot is a (mostly) US centric, for profit organization, so it's assigned slashdot.com.us
a *lot* more 2nd level domains are required - lets start with:
xxx, name, film, music, food, med(ical), tech, fun, sport, etc.
well, you get the idea...
Re:Yes and No. (Score:2, Insightful)
Central control really isn't a problem execpt that it can lead to corrupt decisions that only have single sided benefits. By making everyone an equal, their is no single controller of DNS information or DNS policies in the world.
I'm not a DNS expert by any means, but why let a single orginization control the
Once we work on that, why not look at allowing any number of TDLs? If you want to create your own TDL, you can do it. No need to play to the ICANN group or anyone else. But with the new TDL, comes the responsibility to make sure that you support and manage the TDL. No matter how many TDLs you add, people will still look to
Can anyone see a flaw with (Score:3, Insightful)
A minimal beaurocracy with responsibility for nothing other than running user supplied referenda on which one internet user gets one vote?
Sure, tricky to administrate, but I'll pick a flawed democracy to a perfect dictatorship any day.
Failure of Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
That is what ICANN was supposed to do, but it's a simple fact that they elected only 5 board members instead of 9 as originally agreed. They have subsequently disbanded elections and put in place a "nomination" process which concentrates power in the hands of the original rules.
Similar to the common stories of democracy failing to establish itself in small countries, the original rulers have made some abuses of power. They've played favorites, made arbitrary spending decisions (even blocked inquires from an elected board member for spending records), and they've shown a lack of principle regarding the rights of citizens to whom they should be accountable (witness the unfair domain name dispute policy).
Comments that "the USA does not own the internet" will abound... but ICANN, like a former territory, was given its authority by the US, with a very clear charter that clearly called for a transition to democratically elected officials to make the decisions. Had they followed their charter, had they ernestly held elections, had the original board members stepped down as they had originally agreed, there would be much more tolerance for some bad decisions.
But that's not the case here. Unelected interim officials held on to their power and disbanded elections. Abuses have been made by unelected ICANN board members who do not deserve the power they have improperly siezed for themselves. That's a much different situation that poor decisions on the part of elected officials who should have felt accountable to their constituants who will re-elect them.
Like a developing nation where the interim rulers siezed power and refused to establish democracy as originally chartered, someone needs to step in. The US was both the country that originally granted ICANN its authority, and the US has the clout to demand ICANN's restructing.
This abuse of power and refusal to transistion to democracy are inexcusable. The US would never tolerate it in a former territory (where there's an economic impact on the US at least), and there's no reason that ICANN should be treated any differently.
Two Words... (Score:3, Insightful)
Eminent domain.
The government has the exclusive power to confiscate (for "fair compensation") property for whatever reason. Now, I'm sure you'd love to believe (as you say you do) that when the government does take something, it's all for an important purpose (aka public works...roads / utilities / etc.). Not always is that the case.
About five years ago, my college wanted to build a couple extra residental buildings for the campus, but some "old houses" stood in the way. The college asked the city to exercise their right to buy out those properties. Residents complained, because of course it would lower the property value of the neighborhood. So, the residents were heard, but the college still got the land. Why? The mayor was also dean of the college.
Another good example can be found here [mississippilink.com]. Nissan Automotive bought out the Mississippi Legislature to get a law passed that allowed them to take whatever land they chose to have (and disregard the land's real value).
My point is this: I don't want a governing body who can be bought out to control the internet. I'm sure someone is going to pipe in and say that "Domain names aren't physical property...the government can't exercise eminent domain!" Anyone who wishes to say such a thing apparently doesn't realize that until a law is on the books that says the government can't, the government will.
united nations (Score:4, Insightful)
We want ICANN to act like a decent international regulatory body. Having it act no more evil than ANSI of IEEE would be nice. Unfortunately, ICANN has a bit more going for it, mainly:
So, to make sure it acts like a public group and not like a business, we feel the need to place some sort of authoritarian control over it. Since its domain is the world, however, the US government makes little sense for this. How about the UN?
Now I know that many see the UN as either useless or evil, but in certain cases (the World Health Organization, UNICEF,