U.S. Calls For Public Meeting on ICANN Replacement 155
Glyn writes "The Register is reporting that the US government is holding a public meeting at the end of July over what should happen to ICANN when its contract is renewed in September. In the meantime, it has opened a public comment board where you are able to email comments for the US government and the rest of the world to see. The board is open now but comments need to be sent by this Friday, 7 July. The email postal address is DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov."
Uhh what are we going to do ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there another orgainzation out there that is doing this or is it time to move to IPv6 and an international organization for the Domains and IPs out there.
Replace it with WECANN... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with ICANN is that it seems to cater to the needs, whims, fancies, monpoloies, viewpoints of a ver few entities based in the US.. whereas the internet, in reality, is World Encompassing. Every nation should have representation based on the number of servers hosted in it's soil, amount of bandwidth generated, etc.
This is ./ (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you have any idea that this meeting was happening before you read it here? I sure didn't. We (as a community) are probably one of the most qualified to offer a public comment to the board. Kudos to the editors for posting it.
Also, please don't whine about how the US is trying to control the internet until you've at least sent a public comment to the people who need to here it most.
Re:Question to America... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question to America... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Question to America... (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving all groups equal say in the future of the internet would be a disaster for free expression. Backwards theocracies like Saudi Arabia would push restrictions on pornography and criticism of religion. China would, of course, want anything critical of its sytem blocked. The list goes on.
You don't think it would be this bad? Fine. I think it would be worse. The status quo, while imperfect, is the best way to go. My $0.02
Re:Replace it with WECANN... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think replacing ICANN is a non-starter simply on the basis of the international community's distrust of this government, let alone whatever harebrained scheme they US has come up with.
The practical effect, if the US goes forward with something idiotic (which seems entirely possible), is that the rest of the world just says "f*ck you," creates an alternative, and the Internet in general keeps working with the US having about 1/10 the influence on the international body than it has on ICANN. This might be a bit annoying for a while, but then everyone (except a few official US government networks) will regard the international body as having more legitimacy, and the US alternative will die a slow unmourned death.
So maybe it's not such a bad idea afterall...
Re:Question to America... (Score:5, Insightful)
At the same time, if ICANN were replaced by an international body strongly influenced by, for example, Europeans then we might well have more freedom and be less likely to see puritanical elements in the US getting a say over network decisions.
However, for the moment I think that the devil that we have is doing an okay job, and would hesitate to replace that with a devil that we don't know. Basically, I worry that an international body could end up being influenced by countries without a tradition of free speech in ways that could have a far more chilling effect on the internet than anything ICANN has ever done.
Re:This is ./ (Score:2, Insightful)
"We (as a community) are probably one of the most qualified to offer a public comment to the board."
That probably should be true, but the reality is that Slashdot is one of the largest collections of irrational kooks I have seen on the web. So many are bitter and petty and consumed by a seething nature. They keep trying to hate their way out of an inferiority complex not realising its that hate that makes them inferior in the first place. Slashdot is one of the last places I would trust for good ideas for governance of the Internet. They would turn it into a feckless, corrupt mess not unlike the UN. So consumed are many here with the speck in the eyes of others they dont see the logs in their own. Slashdot has A LOT of bad people on it.
Re:Disturbing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if ICANN was to be replaced / restructured / whatever, I have some serious doubts if its actions will change.
I'll trump your doubts with some tough love of reality.
As things continue to be plugged into everything else, more & more restrictions are applied & enforced until & unless that resource (person, place, or thing) provides the US Gov't with a peephole to collect data at any time of their choosing, for any reason, then make use of it in any way they choose. (actually, they may want something active, not a passive, say the ability to interrupt or filter undesired material once they see something which they don't want circulated. Think of China's shenanigans on a global scale.
The slippery slope says unlicensed[1] encryption will then become treated just as exported encryption is now. And a Supreme Court fight will ensue regarding 1st Ammendment vs. the right of the gov't to protect itself, not unlike the justification for our Cuban Scout Camp.
________________________
[1] unlicensed == no backdoor. The war over this isn't over.
Re:Question to America... (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA didn't wire the whole world, fund the whole process and doesn't _maintain_ the whole thing, so this argument is moot. The idea that somehow creating/inventing it alone (which is not true, but let's not go there) would give you the right to control it, even though others are maintaining/building/improving it too, is basically a patent idea on what? Mathematics and networking protocols? Anyway, you didn't patent it, and even if you did, it would have expired long ago, and even if it wouldn't have, other countries wouldn't consider them valid, and even if they would, I would still consider them stupid if they would have existed in the first place.
Weird, I know that sharing seems to be some kind of leftist hippy idea, but that is the only thing bringing our civilisation forward: sharing of information (especially the beneficital ones, like science). You don't get to "create" mathematics. It existed before, you merely discovered it.
Your (and those who tout the 'we created it, we own it' argument) biggest problem is misdirected patriotism. Be proud of your country in different ways. Similarly this is also the problem with your foreign policy: unilaterialism. I don't have to enlist the problems and disaster that policy lead to in regards your country.
Seriously, put this argument to death. I'm sick and tired to hear it every time this issue comes up.
Or maybe you should just stop infringing the british-created legal system.
Re:Disturbing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did the US create the majority of what makes up Internet? The majority of physical wiring, routers, computers, stored content, users, etc. are all outside the US of A. So who got to create what?
Re:Disturbing... (Score:4, Insightful)
This has to be one of the wierdest comments I've ever seen on /. I don't understand, why would we want that? So that people can be restricted to only surf in their own countries? Or are you saying that being international is "stupid", that it's "silly" not to automatically associate a company with a specific nation?
Let's take a concrete example: wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. It's hosted by a US foundation and most of the servers reside in Florida. This would put it squarely in the .us category, right? But what about the foreign language wikipedias? I doubt there is less than 20 people in the entire US who would be interested in the Norwegian wikipedia [slashdot.org]. So by what crazy logic should the people of norway be forced to access a site completly in norwegian, for norwegians, by norwegians (btw, is that how you spell norwegian?) be forced to access no.wikipedia.us? It's insane! It would also be extremely difficult for the wikimedia foundation to purchuse all the top level domains it would need (there are what, 180 different language wikipedias?) not only because of the administrative pains but also because it would cost way, way more than wikimedia could ever pay. Remember, they're a non-profit, the wikipedia servers are hanging on by a thread as it is! Wikipedia also has extra servers in other countries (I believe they're located in Amsterdam and Hong Kong, but I'm probaly wrong). Should pages going through them have their respective nations top level domains?
I can't believe you got modded to 4.
Re:many possible ways to look at this (Score:0, Insightful)
And the English invented the computer, so all those belong to us.
And the Germans invented cars, so get your fat arses out of them
and start walking you lardy oafs.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's all just a de facto agreement. The roots could, at any time, stop accepting ICANN updates, or start listinging to someone else as well. Likewise you already can have your DNS servers pointed at additonal or alternate roots. There's a number of them out there, OpenNIC being one.
So it's a situation similar to search engines, just with ICANN being even larger than Google. There can be, and are, alternative lookup systems. The ICANN roots are just the de facto standard.
Ok well the problem is if you create a new body with legslative power, suddenly this all goes away. The UN, or whoever runs it, mandidates that this is the ONLY DNS roots and you all play ball with them. They do what they please with it, including caving to the demands of the many undemocratic members, and there's fuck-all you can do about it.
What really needs to happen is that if other orginizations like the EU want their own DNS they need to stop bitching and put their money where their mouth is. Make a set of root servers, good ones, well ocnnected and stable like the root-servers.net roots. Don't make them take the ICANN zone file directly, however. Have them talk to your own org, EUCANN or whatever. Initally, just have it copy the ICANN zone file, subject to approval. Then, once you've got yourself established as a good credible system, talk to ICANN about splitting the zone duties. EUCANN gets all the domains in its' area, ICANN keeps the rest, they both mirror each other's zones.
I don't want to see the existing infastructure, which works quite well, handed over to the UN.
Re:Question to America... (Score:4, Insightful)
As a European, I feel more confident in the future of the Internet if DNS remains into American control than if it were to be placed into the hands of a UN-like international body.
Would you also feel more confident if the UN's ITU, which is the world's oldest international organisation, which runs the worldwide phone system, were dismantled in favour of a USA-run phone system? After all, the USA are the ones with phonnes that can't dial emergency numbers reliably, that charge for incoming calls and text messages, that have monopolies caused by deregulation and state-sponsored corporations. Surely you want the whole world to have that level of service?
Telecoms is one thing that the UN does very well and the USA does very badly. Your confidence is misplaced.
stop saying "it's our internet"!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You Betcha (Score:1, Insightful)
I ranked Karl 1 when I voted in the election.
Since the election, ICANN has been one big soap opera. They immediately realized elections were going to be a problem in places with educated end users, as the hand picked ICANN candidates didn't win in Europe or North America. Both of those regions elected directors that were critics of how things were being done. And that ended up being the last election.
What really needs to be done is figure out what ICANN or its replacement are supposed to be doing. I don't think stealing money from domain name holders or adding new Trademark rights should be in the list, though those seem to be its two biggest tasks right now.
Don't expect any changes now though. Since ICANN nixed
Re:Question to America... (Score:1, Insightful)
Huh? What exactly have you been smoking?
1) Every phone in the US, except old analog variants (old-and-crusty cell/physically disconnected landline), can dial 911, even without service. Even good old analog POTS lines have enhanced 911 where the dispatcher knows the street address the phone is at. And every modern cell phone I've looked at recently passes along GPS coordinates to the 911 dispatcher. Holy crap the sky is falling!
2) Charge for incoming calls? My home phone doesn't get charged crap for incoming calls. And if you think it's absolutely imperative that you get ahold of me, to tell me something that 99% of the time is a nonsensical piece of bullshit that could've waited until I got back to the office or home, well I've got unlimited incoming calls on my cellphone too.
3) Charge for text messages? Well, you've got me there. The plan I'm on right now does charge me for text messages (though I get a hundred or so for "free" each month). But since the only text messages I'm even remotely interested in receiving are automated messages from work alerting me of failures in mission-critical systems - I think I can get by with that "limitation".
Basically, my point is... Kid, you really shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.