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."
Question to America... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, if no-one country controls the internet, do my American friends agree that the time has come to create a new body to oversee the decision making process. A truly global body for a truly global infrastructure.
Personally, I do think it is right that all groups get an equal say in the future of the internet. We've got to work together otherwise we run the risk of fragmentation, which is the last thing anyone (apart from China I guess) wants. What say you guys?
(I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this question was always going to be asked...
Disturbing... (Score:4, Interesting)
US Federal Government view point (as expressed by the US State Department):
- The internet was developed with US Government money (and therefore US Government property)
- We allow foriegn interests access but as long as they play by our rules (eg: stay in your own domain)
- We will allow anything that furthers our country's interest (eg: promotes trade with the US, preferable in US favour)
Now has the previous incumbent (ICANN) abided and/or promoted the above?
Much as people loathe ICANN it has probably has stayed true to the above statements.
Other countries will probably want to dispute the first item (the rest will crumble) however you are going to have to butt heads with the a group of extremely stubborn (in their view patriotic) bureaucrats.
Even if ICANN was to be replaced / restructured / whatever, I have some serious doubts if its actions will change.
Zombie Engineer
Comment removed (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:email postal address? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Question to America... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Replace it with WECANN... (Score:4, Interesting)
If they did it by registered domain names (IPs), Tuvalu [wikipedia.org] could finally pass [domaintools.com] Sierra Leone, Grenada, Liberia, Somalia and French Guiana as a major world power!
(as a side note, I came across this [visibone.com] cool map hunting the links)Re:Question to America... (Score:1, Interesting)
How about just getting the governments out? (Score:3, Interesting)
The replacement for ICANN should first and foremost not be beholden to any government; and secondly be populated by those who understand what the Internet is - not politicians, accountants, managers, economists, philosophers, etc.
Open elections for qualified candidates should be voted upon by a similar pool of qualified voters.
Things should return to people who know what they are doing, care, and have an interest in moving things forward. Have you noticed how progress has essentially stopped once the politicos got involved?
Re:Question to America... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Question to America... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Question to America... (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, as the AC says, the UN is essentially beholden to the dictatorships that make up its majority. I know, I know, cue the inevitable response that the United States is just as bad. Well, our "dictators" go away after a fixed amount of time, and while some of our nuttier politicians get ideas in their heads about things like .xxx, you'll notice that they talk a lot while things stay the same.
The UN has a proven track record of not fucking up telecommunications as evidenced by the ITU. The USA has a proven track record of fucking up telecommunications as evidenced by your politicians basically handing money over to telecom companies and deregulating them so they could build local monopolies to gouge the consumer.
What is nutty about allowing .xxx? So far, the only complaints I have heard are against requiring .xxx, which is a total straw-man argument that has no bearing on allowing .xxx as a TLD. The USA are blocking allowing .xxx, which is entirely unreasonable and another example of interference, not an example of non-interference as you claim.
You Betcha (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years back I was elected to the ICANN board - and I voted against all the junk that is today being recognized as a disaster, such as the perpetual grant of
Today, ICANN has erased virtually all forms of public participation - to the degree that you and I can't even observe how ICANN makes its decisions. Yet, at the same time the dns registries (Verisign et al), all the big telcos, and the intellectual property get the red carpet treatment - to the degree that ICANN is now gifting some on the order $300,000,000 per yer out of the pockets of captive
ICANN, with the help of NTIA, is really nothing more than a mideavel guild - it sets product descriptions, terms of sale, and choses who can be a member of the guild. In modern terms it is a combination in restraint of trade. Those are often illegal in the US and elsewhere, but few are willing to play hardball and ask that question in court because of the hand of the US government agency, NTIA, that rests on ICANN's shoulder. Yet NTIA, like many of the actions of todays US gov't are based on rather fancyful readings of the constitution or statutes and may, when reviewed, be found to be excessive claims.
So it is quite appropriate that people remember that tomorrow is the 4th of July - and should remember that just as the Declaration of Independence cited grievances against King George III, you should send your concerns and complaints to NTIA by the 7th.
Re:Ah the US Government (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Question to America... (Score:4, Interesting)
But since...
A new agency/organization in charge of the DNS system would have to satisfy the following in my opinion:
- Be a fair representation, relative to the number of the people using the Internet. That rules out the influence of dictatorships totally. There is more than enough weight from Europe, US and India to counter any negative effect.
- Be technically-savvy. It shouldn't be the business comittee ICANN is, rather it should be managing the root DNS servers. That rules out Verisign profiteering, because they wouldn't be let to sell domains at $7 compared to $0.03 in their expenses. This is kind of similar to the idea you cited in your post, about appointing people of technical merit to lead the organization. I find that a good solution.
- Their primary goal should be the current operation, future improving and even research for a better DNS system.
Now we only have to figure out where to find such organization.Personally, I don't think the fears from the UN are justified. The UN already has a lot of worldwide organizations, doing excellent work (do I need to cite ITU, WHO, UNICEF, etc?). If the organization is set up like I've described above, then it is basically independent from any other influence described. The organization would only belong in title to the UN and financially. It would be really distant from the General Assembly of the UN, which is where the dictators lurk. Noone could influence the organization once its set up from the General Assembly, as the USA has the veto power to block any resolutions coming from there.
It is certainly the lesser of two evils and I don't think it would be too far fetched to say that most likely it would even be a positive approach.