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.'"
Pot? Is that you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind of like... the government??
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:3)
Yeah, but at least we have a shot at voting the bums out if they fuck things up. Don't have that ability, even in theory, with ICANN.
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
First, if a company is able to legally lie, and back stab, etc, it's all due to the inaction of our government to properly govern and regulate the businesses. Businesses are there to make money by doing anything they have to within the confines of law.
Second. There are two things that make Governmnet corruption very dangerous. 1. They are an entity that is designed to do nothing but watch out for us. When they start watching out for each other, or a corporation, then people get harmed. 2. They have more power than any company on earth. Microsoft will not carpet bomb your neighborhood just because you didn't read your license agreement. The Government, however, can ammend the constitution, make laws, repeal laws, use force, and CAN essentially do what they please. Currently, all the corruption is kept low-key, however, it won't take a huge leap to allow our officals absolute power over us. I'm not a diehard NRA member, but if the government takes away out right to bear arms (which they sure as hell can), then we have little recourse against our own government, should to worst-case senario happen.
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'.
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
and
and all the other domains run on the US goverment root servers.
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
Goverment: The bodythat brought the DMCA to you (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Goverment: The bodythat brought the DMCA to you (Score:2)
> how about trusting neither and using intellect to figure out what in the world is going on.
Of course! I simply meant my 'default' state is to trust the intentions of government, more than the intentions of companies. Most of the stupid shit my government does is at the behest of companies, and most of the good stuff they try to do is denounced by companies. Thus, by default, I think the government has generally good intentions - when it does shit not in the interests of the people, you can usually find a corperate lobby-tank behind it.
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
Yes they can. At which point you could fight against them, and nobody would protect them other than themselves. You know, this is when its time for a new government.
> The worst business can do is sic their lawyers on you
Or sell you a product that kills you. The rough part about this is, they are protected by the government in this case. Procedure, laywers, etc. Companies are sued all the time for releasing dangerous products to the public, and yet, you cannot retaliate in a like-minded manner.
Which is why, to me, companies are inherently more dangerous. They have the freedom, leverage, and power to do shit and then influence their body gaurd to protect them. When the body gaurd (government) charges, alone, without its funding partner (companies) joining the fight, I think youd be in a much better situation to protect yourself because all bets regarding what constitutes allowable forms of defense would be off.
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
And who was it who passed that legislation?
Also, this isn't just about good vs bad intentions. It's about competence. A body whose only business is operation in one specific operational area (ie provate companies) tend to be better in that area than a body who involves themselves in all and everything going on around them (ie, govermnents)
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?
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
Of course they're in a better position. The United States of America has the best government money can buy!
What worries me is the idea of "unaccountable to Internet users, businesses and other key interest groups." How in the blazes can you be accountable to both Internet users and businesses? The interests of individual users and businesses (not to mention "key interest groups" - read: 'corporate sponsored lobbies') are diabolically oppposed at the most fundamental level.
Vortran out
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
Maybe it's for the simple reason that most people work for private companies and they provide a source of income. The government is an organization which simply takes a chunk of that income away.
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
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.
Re:So it is OK for US govt, but not for S-Africa ? (Score:2)
The above poster took at shot at government, using examples of behaviour that are infinately more reflective of the dealings of corperations. Thats all.
From what I gather from this specific issue, the US government would not be a popular choice given that it should be indepenant of countries (I'm in Canada, for instance), but it seems that anything would be better than ICANN in its current state.
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
But Adobe can!
Anyhow, sure, the government can have me locked up with all of 10 minutes notice. People would notice, noise would be made. Realistically, *somebody* has to protect your property rights, or else your car might be getting stolen every other week until material wealth disparty is nearly eliminated. Unfortunately, capitalism does not work without a body that enforces and protects property rights in order to keep the motivations for gaining in material wealth in check. Otherwise your 'right' to gain and become weathier would be judged by your immediate peers and community, and youd have to physically defend your property yoruself from people who feel you dont deserve it.
Ironic, isn't it? The government is the only body that allows companies and humans in general to gain disproportionate amounts of wealth other their peers, the very driving force of the most american system of all, free market capitalism!
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
Re:Pot? Is that you? (Score:2)
"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
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.
Re:"more control"? (Score:2)
(I actually wonder if this could happen in the future
Re:"more control"? (Score:5, Informative)
Nah. My DNS service right now is being provided by OpenNIC [unrated.net], which uses the standard technique: it resolves addresses that it owns first, and then falls back to looking things up in the standard root servers. Works fine, zero problems over many months so far. Were enough people to move to this or something like it, we could kill ICANN no prob.
Good news/Bad news (Score:2)
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--
Change? But how (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re:Change? But how (Score:2)
Like, uh, the government?
Re:Change? But how (Score:2)
New Top-Level Domain (Score:2, Funny)
Re:New Top-Level Domain (Score:3, Funny)
Need some context (Score:2, Troll)
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... (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...
Better the Government than a Corporation (Score:2, Interesting)
yeah right (Score:2)
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.
Re:yeah right (Score:2)
Re:Better the Government than a Corporation (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and that power is available to all arms of the government at any time.
[Branch A of US Government:] Hello, the Navy? I dont like my neighbour. Could you send over the Navy SEALs to take him out?
[Navy:] Sure. Want us to get the FBI to erase his life savings, just to add insult to injury to his family?
[Branch A of US Government:] Sure! Man, I love being in the government, we're so darn powerful! We can do anything! Anything, I tell you! Bywuahahahaha!
Dilemma (Score:3, Troll)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dilemma (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. Where do you think legislation like the CBDTPA (formerly the SSSCA), DMCA, CDA (Communications Decency Act), et al. come from? Hint - it aint the Republicans, it's Hollywood (or as it's known as in Washington - the Democratic Party).
Historically, Republicans have been against legislation that invades privacy. It's the fucking nutballs like Fritz Hollings that you have to worry about.
Re:Dilemma (Score:2)
You do know that, until last year, the Republicans have had a majority in both houses since 1994.
None of the above bills, those that were put to a vote, could have been passed without the complete support of the Repubs.
Just saying.
What's chilling about the Republicans is not what they do when they're in someone's back pocket, as Hollings is, but what they do when they are not.
Re:Dilemma (Score:2)
Re:Dilemma (Score:2)
A government that holds its own citizens indefinitely without charges on the brig of a ship in South Carolina because of a supposed plot to set off a "dirty bomb" in D.C., despite Constitutional requirements for due process, is what I call an authoritarian regime. A government whose Attorney General feels the need to cover the breast of Lady Justice because it makes him "uncomfortable" is not a group I want censoring my free speech.
Now, you may say that this evidence does not prove my claim. I say it does.
Re:Dilemma (Score:2)
According to CNN, he was captured on May 8. It is now June 11. Am I missing what you're saying, because it looks like he has been imprisoned for a hell of a lot more than 48 hours!
Everything old is new again... (Score:2, Interesting)
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? (Score:2)
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. (Score:3, Interesting)
I say let the NSF do it again.
Re:Hey. Remember. (Score:2)
But simply handing it back to the US government won't do much to solve the problems. Maybe it's time to start treating DNS domains as being analagous to telephone numbers, thus have the ITU handle all TLDs.
Re:Hey. Remember. (Score:2)
Maybe there could be a system where the most common result in a p2p-dns query is used, or maybe pgp-style webs of trust. I dunno. I'm just talking out of my ass. I'm no expert.
Yes and No. (Score:2)
Without central control, where is the guarantee that someone isn't hijacking your namespace.
Why is central control a problem?
And keep in mind, every single individual decides how they want to peform dns resolution. Either by choosing which nameservers to use, or if you are a nameserver, by choosing which root servers to use.
The only reason DNS works now is because the vast majority of people use the same root servers.
I think the real question, though, is why is central control bad? What is it that we would like to see in the DNS system that icann won't do now?
Our real problem is that DNS became the way to find web pages. That's not what it was designed for. It was designed as distributed, heirarchial system. You register a
The idea was to give your organisation or network a name, and then use that heirarchy to organise all your resources.
My point is, the only reason it's such a big deal is because of the Web.
What we really need is a distributed lookup service that is more effective, and hence, more desireable, than using dns.
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
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:Internet isn't part of the US (Score:2, Informative)
The U.S. federal government (or any of its agencies, presumably including the Dept. of ICANN) cannot be sued unless they consent to it.
The same goes for any of the Sovereign States. That's the nature of sovereignity.
If you think there's little accountability now, wait until it's federalized.
Remember, access to your elected pol is cheap and a good investment. Prices start at $10k worth of free speech campaign contributions...
Re:Internet isn't part of the US (Score:2)
USA: We're taking over the Internet, ICANN can't be trusted.
Rest of world: Er, we want some say in how the Internet is run too.
USA: (Confused responses, some recognising that the USA is not the Internet, some following the Jesse Helms school of diplomacy)
Rest of world: Screw this. We'll do it ourselves. (ISPs all over the world obliged to point at new root servers. Users suddenly finding Internet access increasingly difficult as every other link ceases to be resolvable, email keeps bouncing, and competing standards and assigned numbers begin to really foul things up)
{What happens here you'll have to work out for yourself. The ISPs may take things into their own hands, Microsoft may invent a "new reliable Internet", or the governments may realise the urgency of the situation and resolve it with a new, accountable, transnational authority.}
gov't control (Score:2, Funny)
Re:gov't control (Score:2)
Bad Analogy. Abort? Retry? Fail.
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.
Re:That's the catch with ICANN (Score:4, Informative)
-jhp
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.
Re:The stupid thing is... (Score:2)
Re:The stupid thing is... (Score:2)
1) We are going to allow domains registered under those TLDs to be maintained by their owners
2) We are going to take back domains and give them to those who bribe us or share our political views.
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:No need to panic just yet (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Granted it may not be this obvious but keep in mind that the Senate is Fritz's domain.
Re:No need to panic just yet (Score:2)
Senator Burns is right but this is a poor solution (Score:2, Flamebait)
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.)
Great, how noble of them (Score:2)
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.
Give it to Amish... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd rather see the Amish in control of ICANN
Just Go To The Meetings (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:More US unilaterism (Score:2)
I realise that you said "reform", but bear in mind that UN-WIPO is the domain dispute resolution body of choice for large companies wanting to squash individuals with the temerity to tread on their turf.
Is there much wrong with having a global body run entirely by referenda of individual users, administrated by a minimal beaurocracy with the sole function of verifying one-voter-one-vote? I know that fraud would be tricky to prevent, but bear in mind that you started by saying "reform [the] UN". ;-)
What's the problem? (Score:2, Funny)
Dubious (Score:5, Interesting)
Through law, one way or another there is government control (ours or someone else's govt.) of just about everything, now.
What we need are some serious lawsuits to clarify the rules or non rules.
I for one want to go back to some rules that should never have been changed and another that should have always been.
Rule one - First come first served.
The heck with who owns a copyright or trademark, this is a seperate space.
You want it, get in line, get in line early, if you miss out try to buy it, if you can't buy it, rent it or come up with something else.
Rule two - One Domain name per customer.
dove.unilever.com is just fine, the space for dove.com should belong to someone else.
'www.' should be depricated.
Rule three - The name must be in active use.
The lack of this rule has created squaters, and ties directly into the previous two rules.
Somebody had the rules system pretty close to right in the begining, too bad they wrecked it.
And last the rule that never was, but should have been.
You should register once, only once.
Renewal is a form of extortion at worst, taxation at best, and really creates a situation in which the root registrar is the actual owner.
This is a public database, registration fees are understandable, but after it is registered, administration is trivial and should be financed by the folks who are pulling daily feeds for the BIND servers that are actually routing it commercially.
Off the soapbox.
What happens when Bill G. registers linux.com? (Score:2)
Also, good luck getting "www." deprecated, champ.
Re:Dubious (Score:3, Informative)
1) Define Customer. If you are only going to get one domain, it requires you to exist as separate org entities. The domain name defines you, so something like mozilla.org under your plan would be mozilla.netscape.com. Mozilla.org would be owned by someone else and confusion would arise because people would go to mozilla.org looking for a browser.
(Mozilla.org was originally registered by JWZ, but I don't know if he did it in his name or Netscape's. He also had jwz.org at that point which would have prevented him from doing this.)
2) dove.com should be required to provide a list of alternate sites (name, brief description) the user may have been looking for, within reason. E.G., dove ice cream bars could could get listed at dove.com as an alternate by just asking.
3) Your renewal rule makes sense, but w/o renewal, who will maintain the domain databases? It costs too much money to maintain large, important servers for a company to be responsible for without some means to pay for the service.
Personally, I feel the gov't should have continued to maintain them in the public's interest. However, certain laws would need to be put in place to make sure other countries get fair and equal treatment.
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.
All your names is belong to US (Score:2)
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...
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.
This must be... (Score:2)
You know, how they all want to get the government "off our backs" or "out of our hair."
Consistency? (Score:3, Interesting)
A net without US script kiddies, self-important housewives, the NRA, the US arms of the MPAA and RIAA spamming P2P networks... Mmmm. :)
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.
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,
Re:And...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And...? (Score:2)
If you don't like it, start your own network. And I actually encourage you to do so. If this could really happen (hint, it's only one senator, ICANN can afford the other 99), it would be the best thing that could happen for the internet, if the US government actually had any sense left. Not so long ago, it was the fairest institution in existence. As it is, it might nudge us toward a less centralized DNS, which would be a good thing.
But in reality, he might just be shaking the tree, possibly unwittingly, to fill the party coffers.
Re:And...? (Score:2)
What ICANN does is match names with numbers, akin to a telephone book. Domain names are matched to IP addresses. And to be able to access something over the Internet, you need an IP address.
And as for starting your own network...how would you get onto the Internet without an IP and/or domain name?
Re:And...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The only reply to this i can think of (Score:2)
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 (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:The only reply to this i can think of (Score:2)
Re:The only reply to this i can think of (Score:2)
To the vast majority of people there is little difference in the accountability. Especially if that government is a 2 party state, with elections sometimes winding up as farce.
Re:The only reply to this i can think of (Score:2)
Yep, this is just the first step in a plan that also eventually involves your head in a cage full of rats.
Re:dumbass americans (Score:3, Informative)
There are two problems with this post:
First off the popular vote `in most areas' didn't go for Gore, or he would have had more electoral votes. The total popular vote was very slightly more for Gore than for Bush, but this was because some of the very populous states, such as California went for Gore.
And this brings us to the actual reason for the Electoral College, which is very different from what you suggest in your post. The founders were quite rightly worried that a few large states would be able to control federal elections in such a way that smaller states would have no voice at all, so they reached a compromise. The existence of the Electoral College requires that a presidential candidate build a broad base of support accross a range of states, thus ensuring that he better represents the entire nation.
In the absence of the Electoral College, no presidential candidate would ever have incentive to listen to any but a few of the largest states -- and would be much more the president of New Yorkifornia than of the United States.
Re:dumbass americans (Score:2)
That sounds nice, and things perhaps work out that way now, but that's not what they were shooting for.
The folks who wrote up the constitution were elitists who were deathly afraid (some might say rightly so) of the "mob-rule" mentality that might set in with a straight democracy. The idea behind the electoral colledge system was that states would appoint their "leading citizens" (in a way left up to the state governments, often by fiat) who would gather and jointly pick a president. It was figured that most of the time candidates would be regional (no mass media back in the 18th century), so no one candidate would get the majority, and it would be thrown into the sentate. Electors were not meant to be directly elected by a state's people. It took a constitutional ammendment to change that.
The senate was also not meant to be a directly elected body, and was to be appointed by the states (however they felt like doing it) from among the state's "wisest men".
Also realise that even for states that had direct elections for all this stuff, they usually restricted the vote to adult white males who owned land initially. If you lived in an apartment, you weren't considered responsible enough to get a vote.
The system we have in the US now is the result of slow and contunial evolution, not some divinely inspired document.
Re:Out of the Fying Pan.... (Score:2)
-1: quippy?
Re:Why US??? (Score:2)
Oddly enough, almost every bit of the net that exists outside of the US was built by others, and each seperate network was joined to each other and to the US network - giving an international network (hence the name internet). Even a backwater like Australia had a nationwide computer network run by the universities before it was connected to the US network. It is not a US network - it is an international network. Currently the US has a great deal of financial control of the internet (it costs others to get data both to AND from the US, while the US mainly only pays for internal traffic), and I can only see this increasing.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)