Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

ICANN Writes US Government Requesting Independence

Posted by Zonk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 08:41 AM
from the very-polite-request dept.
Government United States The Internet News
Combat Wombat writes with word that IP address and domain name overseer ICANN has put in a request to the US government, asking to be freed from ties to the United States. A 'lengthy' report was sent to the US Dept. of Commerce, and covers the numerous steps the organization has already completed along the road to independence. The BBC reports that a meeting will be held soon in response to the report, a reaction to the expected end of US control. "The meeting marks the half-way point for the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) under which ICANN was tasked to comply with a series of 'responsibilities' deemed necessary for its release from official oversight. The JPA grew out of the original Memorandum of Understanding that established Icann and signalled the beginning of the end for US control."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Moving Net Control From ICANN to Governments? 468 comments
a whoabot writes "The BBC has a piece by Bill Thompson suggesting that "control" of the internet should move away from corporate groups(ICANN and the Web Consortium) and to governments. We previously had an article on ICANN and the UN World Summit on the Information Society. One quote: "We allow images of consensual sex in our cinemas, but not images of bestiality or child abuse. Why should the net be any different?" My personal answer: because the internet should not be another TV or cinema, it should be a free, user-as-peer and user-controllable media; a "reversible" media, as Baudrillard would put it; not user-as-consumer."
[+] Technology: U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS 385 comments
An Anonymous Reader wrote in with a story on the Eweek site, reporting that the Federal Government is going to keep control of the Domain Name System rather than handing it over to ICANN. From the article: "...the United States is committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS, and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file..."
[+] Technology: ICANN Plays Down U.S. Influence 253 comments
aychamo writes "The ICANN (the company that distributes most of the world's internet addresses) is denying that it gives the US government too much control over its operations. For instance, the US was the only country able to stop ICANN from using .xxx for pr0n domains, instead of .com. The ICANN is planning events to show that it is not US influenced." From the article: "ICANN's board of directors appears to favor a proposal for a new set of Internet addresses that end in .Asia, which would more easily identify Asia-focused Web sites. Approval of the new top-level domain could come during the ICANN board of directors meeting on Sunday. One other major development this week involves progress toward allowing the use of non-English language characters when steering a Web browser to a particular site. ICANN is now exploring a proposal to open Web browsers up to dozens of the world's other alphabets. Actual tests of just such a system are now in the works, Twomey said. "
[+] Technology: ICANN Wants Immunity 235 comments
rprins writes "In what is perhaps a reaction to recent Homeland Security demands, a strategic report by ICANN suggests that it should take on the model of a private international organization (PDF). That would make ICANN immune from US law and regulations. However, it's unlikely that the Bush administration would grant ICANN these privileges. So the organization might opt to relocate to Switzerland where such privileges are easier to attain."
[+] Technology: US Control of Internet Remains an Issue 303 comments
Hugh Pickens writes "A UN-sponsored Internet conference ended with little progress on the issue of US control over the domain name system run by ICANN, a California-based nonprofit over which the US. government retains veto power. By controlling the core systems, the United States indirectly influences the way much of the world uses the Internet. As the conference drew to a close, the Russian representative, Konstantin Novoderejhkin, called on the United Nations secretary-general to create a working group to develop ''practical steps'' for moving Internet governance ''under the control of the international community.'' The United States insists that the existing arrangements ensure the Internet's stability and there's little indication that the US government and ICANN plan to cede their roles over domain names anytime soon. ''I think (there are) a small number of countries that are very agitated and almost don't care what the facts are,'' said Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, who stepped down as ICANN's chairman earlier this month. ''It's a very small vocal group bothered by this issue. ICANN has existed for eight years and done a great job with its plans for internationalization.'' With no concrete recommendations for action, the only certainty going forward is that any resentment about the American influence will only grow as more users from the developing world come online, changing the face of the global network. The next forum will held next year in New Delhi, India."
Submission: ICANN demands freedom from US Govt by Anonymous Coward
[+] Technology: ICANN Wants To End Commerce Dept. Oversight In 2009 58 comments
Ian Lamont writes "ICANN's current Joint Project Agreement with the US Commerce Department is set to expire in September of 2009, and ICANN wants to become more autonomous and switch to a global governance model, says ICANN's executive officer. The agreement between the nonprofit ICANN and the Commerce Department has been in place since 1998, and was renewed in 2006 despite international protests. A few US-based groups named in the article — including the Center for Democracy and Technology, the trade group TechNet and a conservative think tank iGrowthGlobal — would like the agreement with the Commerce Department to continue, in part to provide 'accountability.' The ICANN officer quoted in the article says expiration of the Commerce Department agreement would not remove accountability, as ICANN still has a contract with the US to operate the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority and must follow California law governing nonprofits. The Register is running a related story about why some people are uncomfortable with the United States' influence on ICANN. We discussed ICANN's request for independence a few months ago."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

ICANN Writes US Government Requesting Independence 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • From the Office of His Imperial Majesty (Score:3, Funny)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday January 24 2008, @08:45AM (#22165894)
    Dear ICANNN,

    No.

    Sincerely,
    George W. Bush

    • Re:From the Office of His Imperial Majesty (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shakrai (717556) * on Thursday January 24 2008, @08:57AM (#22166016) Journal

      Ya know, as easy as it is to take potshots at Dubya, I think you've largely missed a legitimate concern.

      So ICANN wants to be released from oversight by the United States. Great. I bet that makes a lot of people around here happy. What's it going to be replaced with exactly? Do you really want an ICANN without any oversight?

      Say what you will about the United States and the current arrangement, but at least at the end of the day ICANN is responsible to SOMEONE. That 'someone' is in turn responsible to 300,000,000 Americans. While 300,000,000 != the whole population of Earth, it's a hellva lot better then ICANN being responsible to no one in my book.

      • I agree. Until some international or "country neutral" form of oversight can be put in place it's not a good idea to arbitrarily remove the oversight that it currently has. Regardless of what the tinfoil hat people might think of the current arrangement.
        • U.N.

          Largest body of countries, International.

          Now, if you grew wary of the american policies concerning ICAAN, get ready for bitchslapping at a worldwide level.
        • it's not a good idea to arbitrarily remove the oversight that it currently has.

          Okay, I'll bite. I've been hearing this argument for a while, but nobody mentions what form this oversight really takes. It also begs another question: How useful is this oversight? Can it do anything about the US government and the telcos working hand in hand to wiretap the shit out of the internet? Can it do anything about the telco lobbies who want to bend network neutrality to their own profitable ends?

          If losing ICANN oversight is such a big deal, make your case. It seems like the internet's pretty much fucked either way, so how useful are they anyway?

          • Re:From the Office of His Imperial Majesty (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Shakrai (717556) * on Thursday January 24 2008, @10:36AM (#22167624) Journal

            Can it do anything about the US government and the telcos working hand in hand to wiretap the shit out of the internet

            Exactly what would you have ICANN do about this? It's the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. It's most important role is to manage the dns root and address allocations in such a way that the end users don't conflict with each other.

            What exactly is ICANN to do if AT&T decides to let the NSA splice into some fiber? Are you going to blame the ITU for wiretapping of the POTS network? Do you really think the United States is the only country that wiretaps on the internet?

            I'm probably making your point here, but the counter-argument is that if ICANN is so useless why are people in such an uproar about it? Somebody has to manage the dns root and ip address allocations. Beyond those two functions, pretty much any country that's connected to the internet can do whatever they want with the portions of it inside of their own borders.

            Let's assume the US did try and assert authority over the internet. How would it do that exactly?

            • Read my post again. I never asked ICANN to do anything. My point was, how precious and difficult is their oversight, exactly, when, as far as I (and, it seems, many here) can see, the problems and challenges facing the internet as we know it are completely unrelated to ICANN, and several orders of magnitude more important?

      • Re:From the Office of His Imperial Majesty (Score:4, Insightful)

        by HangingChad (677530) on Thursday January 24 2008, @09:34AM (#22166518) Homepage

        Ya know, as easy as it is to take potshots at Dubya...

        I don't think this is limited to him and I don't think it means the rest of the world hates the US. I do think it says the rest of the world no longer trusts the US. And in some ways that's worse than hatred. It's definitely sad testimony to what we've become in the eyes of the rest of the world. Instead of being trusted to work cooperatively with other sovereign nations we've pretty much declared, by our actions if not by words, that our pursuit of terrorism trumps every other concern, legitimate or not.

        And it's not just government actions. AT&T threatening to charge at both ends of the pipe and cooperating in warrant-less monitoring of internet and phone traffic on a massive scale. Several of the core ISP's threatening to block certain kinds of traffic. It could easily be a combination of corporate dickishness and the privacy insults we've foisted on the rest of the world and they're just tired of it.

        • I don't think this is limited to him and I don't think it means the rest of the world hates the US. I do think it says the rest of the world no longer trusts the US. And in some ways that's worse than hatred. It's definitely sad testimony to what we've become in the eyes of the rest of the world. Instead of being trusted to work cooperatively with other sovereign nations we've pretty much declared, by our actions if not by words, that our pursuit of terrorism trumps every other concern, legitimate or not.

      • I think the idea is that sooner or later, the ITU or some other group of powermongers is going to claim "jurisdiction" over the Internet on the basis that they are a true "international" organization, and Internet governance will fragment---or worse, people will follow them and Internet protocols will shift from their current (relative) simplicity to something more like OSI or telephony "standards", which are governed more by politics and patent-license-revenue-grabbing than by ease of implementation.

        Givi

        • If you're going to be a fascist fuckwad, at least have the decency to admit it.

          How about if you're going to throw around stuff like 'fascist fuckwad' and 'master race' that you have the balls to do it under your real name and not as an anonymous coward?

          n reality, it's not, of course: it's responsible to your government, which you really don't have any say in

          Really? Last time I checked I get to vote for two of the three branches of the Federal Government. Guess you are one of the cynical people that think voting doesn't matter.

  • As much as it might be good for the Internet, it will never happen. ICANN is considered a strategic U.S. asset. Everyone seems to be forgetting that the Internet started out as a project of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The government is not going to give up control that easily.
    • As long as everyone else plays ball. It looks like they're starting to ask why they're playing ball these days.

      OTOH I'm not sure freing ICANN from any nationality is as good an idea as scrapping it and creating a true multinational organisation from the ground up.

      • Re:They only have control (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Smidge204 (605297) on Thursday January 24 2008, @09:25AM (#22166394)
        I don't suppose you can elaborate on exactly WHY and HOW a multinational organization would be an improvement? ICANN is already run by a board of directors composed of people from all over the globe who represent their own international interests. It also takes advice both from a committee which represents even more governments from around the world and another committee that represents organizations and industries across the globe.

        On top of that, the US government has little or not actual control over ICANN's daily oerations. The cat is out of the bag, sort of speak, and there is no way the US government can effectively control the internet as a whole even if it wanted to, since the rest of the world is sufficiently set up to operate without it - with the exception of content services based in the US, which are privately controlled anyway.

        So other than the generic "USA sux" metality, what's the motivation for total globalization of ICANN's functions? What will this accomplish other than create another incompetent, ineffectual and political circle-jerk like the United Nations?
        =Smidge=

        • another incompetent, ineffectual and political circle-jerk like the United Nations?

          Or, maybe like... your government?

          • To say the International Telecommunication Union is part fo the UN is just as ignorant as saying ICANN is part fo the US government. The ITU was born from the UN but is not controlled by it, much like ICANN.

            And you still haven't answered my question. If anything, you reinforced my point because ICANN is just as multinational as the ITU.
            =Smidge=

            • Furthermore, the ITU---and telecomms in general---aren't exactly known for good, simple (cheap to implement from scratch) protocol design. They tend to produce overcomplicated beasts like OSI [wikipedia.org], GSM [3gpp.org], and ASN.1 [imc.org].

              Why anyone in-the-know would want to leave Internet protocols in the hands of the telecomms is a mystery to me.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by farkus888 (1103903)
      a long long time ago darpa was the only entity on the internet. then universities came on, and now its everybody. if you think darpa still has their mission critical systems on the internet you are mistaken. rolling out your own backbone has become simple and cheap enough that its worth it for them for the increased security that keeping their data out of the internet cloud provides.
      • ... at one of the major backbone facilities. One of the generals asked the guide - who later related this to a class I took at Interop - how the MILNet could be separated from the rest of the Internet in times of war.

        Before the guide could answer, another general replied:

        Explosive bolts.
      • Wasn't the entire point of DARPA's internet to be so massively redundant that no single strike, no matter how large, could disrupt communications? How could it possibly be affordable to roll out a SECOND, completely separate system; given that the current internet already relies on existing infrastructure (telephone and cable lines)? More likely they're just using non-interoperable protocols and standalone servers on current infrastructure (or was that what you meant, if so, sorry..)
        • Actually it was designed because their current networks were unreliable. While robustness as a defense against an attack was planned, it wasn't the main focus. The suvivability was but one of many needs.
        • take a look at alcatel-lucent's long haul microwave equipment. its not cheap, but there is a market for building your own high availability secure long distance wireless backbone. I personally know of 2 projects that have done just that. even if that weren't the case, one look at our defense budget in america should prove any "affordability" arguments are not really valid. I'm sure some general's minesweeper/email client at his desk is on the internet, but they are not sending the "big red button" codes ove

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Slashidiot (1179447)
      Thing is, if it does not happen, countries will end up having their own ICANN equivalents, and therefore, the role now played by ICANN would be played by some kind of group or comitee, formed by every ICANN equivalent in the world... and you'll end up with a UN equivalent, and getting as good performance as with the UN.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by VGPowerlord (621254)
        I don't mean to sound rude, but do you actually understand where ICANN's power comes from? What ICANN inherited from IANA is this:
        1. Control of the IPv4 global distribution. IANA (now ICANN) assigns IP blocks to the 5 Regional Internet Registries: ARIN (North America), RIPE (Europe), APNIC (Asia and Australia), LACNIC (Central and South America), and AfriNIC (Africa).
        2. Control of the contents of the A root DNS server.

        The control of one is used to keep control of the other. ICANN equivalents wouldn't have eit

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Yvanhoe (564877)
      Yeah, and PCs designs all come from IBM. So what ?
      Who controls the ICANN is really of very minor importance today. But if US government thinks it controls it, it is a huge mistake. It would be easy for ISPs to roll their own DNS registries decorrelated from ICANN's. They simply don't do it for the benefit of interoperability. But as soon as the ICANN will to control becomes more inconvenient than marginal interoperability problems, ICANN will become instantly irrelevant.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jesus_666 (702802)
      And if the USA ever decides to use ths asset agains someone, they instantly lose it. Europe is already immune; we could just switch over to ORSN and decide to ignore US standards on IP address usage. Other regions/countries can set up alternative DNS roots as well.

      ICANN is not much of an asset because the USA have to cooperate with everyone anyway, lest they want the internet to fragment.

  • You mean.. like the United Nations? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Peter Cooper (660482) on Thursday January 24 2008, @08:51AM (#22165964) Journal
    ICANN has put in a request to the US government, asking to be freed from ties to the United States.

    Yeah, like that's going to happen. The United Nations is supposedly meant to be independent from the US, but in reality is just a puppet organization held up by the US. Even organizations that aren't based in the US are inevitably tied to the goings-ons of the US from economic, trade, or cultural points of view, such as, say, the Bank of England. Given the US owns the largest swathes of IP address space, I can't see any official or semi-official ties (whether legal or cultural) with the US being cut any time soon.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Fifty Points (878668)
      The UN isn't controlled by the US. If it was, the US would not so often ignore it and dismiss it as irrelevant. (See: Invasion and Occupation of Iraq)
    • If the UN is supposed to be a US puppet organization, all I can say is the US should demand its money back.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Shakrai (717556) *

      The United Nations is supposedly meant to be independent from the US

      Blame this [wikipedia.org] guy. Little known fact: The original idea behind the UN did not grant veto power to the "big five". The Allies agreed to allow it in order to convince the Soviet Union to join.

      but in reality is just a puppet organization held up by the US

      Really? Is that why the General Assembly applauded Hugo Chavez after his little tirade? Is that why we can't even stop resolutions like Zionism == racism? Hell, native New Yorker complaint time: Is that why the bastards think they are above local laws that apply to every other American citizen?

      Even organizations that aren't based in the US are inevitably tied to the goings-ons of the US from economic, trade, or cultural points of view, such as, say, the Bank of England

      And it's our fa

      • Nobody put a gun to the head of the teenagers of the World and made them listen to Britney Spears, wear blue jeans and drink Starbucks coffee. For whatever reason American culture seems to be popular in parts of the World. I fail to see why we should apologize for that.


        Well, if you won't, then please allow ME to personally apologize to the world for Britney Spears.

        --K

        • Hey, I'm not a fan of her music either, but for some strange reason that completely escapes me lots of people (not just Americans) listen to that crap. For better or worse she is an undeniable part of American culture. I can't help but recall how when Bill Clinton went to Vietnam to re-establish relations he saw Vietnamese teenagers listening to Britney Spears and wearing blue jeans. Ten years of bombing the crap out of them and they still embraced our culture. I don't understand it but it's hardly a un

      • Well, you should apologize for Britney Spears.
    • Soory but he who pays the piper calls the tunes.

      Not that many in the US even like the UN. Most of us would be glad to wash our hands of it and use the extra tax money on something worth while like as hookers and blow, instead of pouring money into the pockets of leaches from every butt-crack country on the planet who in turn piss it all away on hookers and blow.

    • If it's a US puppet, then why was the US reluctant to pay its dues?

  • It's not going to (Score:3, Insightful)

    by techpawn (969834) on Thursday January 24 2008, @08:55AM (#22165998) Journal
    But with China and Russia making their own ICANN of sorts it seems to make sense for ICANN to become a free and neutral international department. If it's going to be a WORLD WIDE WEB for much longer and not the US tubes, EURAsia tubes, Russia tubes, and China Tubes something has to give now.

    ICANN becoming their own international organization with no country has to be one of those things.

    • f it's going to be a WORLD WIDE WEB for much longer and not the US tubes, EURAsia tubes, Russia tubes, and China Tubes something has to give now.

      And what exactly is the problem with each country asserting control over the internet within it's own borders? That's how the POTS network works. ICANN's role in this scenario is limited to delegating IP addresses and the DNS root in order to avoid conflicts. But what actually happens to the network itself within national borders should be the call of the country involved. Ya know, sovereignty and all that.

      ICANN becoming their own international organization with no country has to be one of those things.

      And responsible to whom? Themselves? That's a great idea....

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cHiphead (17854)
        nd what exactly is the problem with each country asserting control over the internet within it's own borders?

        The internet is too goddamn important to allow each country to assert such stringent control to create an isolated DNS/IP/access control within its own borders. This is a worldwide phenomenon, isolationi leads to disagreement without conciliatory resolution leads to war.

        Note: I also think ICANN is a raging pile of crap, its corporate control instead of government, at least with a government agency

  • To what end? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Joseph Vigneau (514) on Thursday January 24 2008, @09:08AM (#22166160)
    If ICANN succeeds and gains "independence" from the US Dept. of Commerce, what would change? Has the US government imposed any restrictions on the activities of ICANN while under its wings? Most of the issues dealt with by the government involving the Internet are independent of ICANN's charter. Net neutrality and "protecting the children"/censorship, two of the hot Internet issues in Congress, don't really have much to do with ICANN's workings. Indeed, each nation sets their own policies right now about how their populace uses the global Internet (see: Great Firewall of China).

    The UN probably isn't the best shepherd for ICANN. The ISO seems to be a decent possibility.

  • I hope you're all happy (Score:5, Funny)

    by PinkyDead (862370) on Thursday January 24 2008, @09:15AM (#22166250) Journal
    With all this time spent arguing about who should control the Internet and how everybody hates the US and how everybody loves the US and how the UN is corrupt and how the UN is not corrupt and how everyone except you is a communist and nobody's a communist and China is a big country and Europeans eat French food and Kim Jong Il wants to use the Internet to enslave all of mankind with sharks and laser beams; not once, not even one single time did anyone stop and ask ICANN what they wanted.

    Shame on you all!
  • Haha, for once the saying actually applies...literally. All your ICANN are belong to US.

    • Re:And it's time to CANN .mil and .gov (Score:5, Funny)

      by Shakrai (717556) * on Thursday January 24 2008, @08:59AM (#22166044) Journal

      Unless the United States is trying to be the Ruler of the World it's time to move to .mil.us and .gov.us like everyone else.

      Yes, because in the grand scheme of things with everything that's going on in the World, ranging from the War in Iraq to the Genocide in Darfur, the fact that the United States has global TLDs not ending in .us is really a priority that the World community needs to address.

      • ...the fact that the United States has global TLDs not ending in .us is really a priority that the World community needs to address.
        I think you are missing the GP's point. He's saying that because the United States has global TLDs not ending in .us, we have the war in Iraq and genocide in Darfur. Which makes sense if you don't think about it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Shakrai (717556) *

          The rest of us have a sense of perspective

          And your sense of perspective is leading you to whine about the fact that the United States has a few TLDs for itself? Who the hell cares? That's just a fluke of history. If the UK had gotten the internet going then maybe it would be navy.mil.us instead of navy.mil and royal-navy.mod instead of royal-navy.mod.uk.

          You don't see too many Americans whining about the fact that UTC is based on Greenwich Mean Time. The nerve of those Brits to define the Prime Meridian as going through their country. We sh

          • Now, I think you are 100% correct. I think your responses are rather funny as well. However, as much as it pains me to say as an American, I suggest you go ask a statistically significant group of Americans what UTC and GMT actually are. You could even go further and ask them to point out Greenwich on a map. This may explain the lack of outrage more than an enhanced sense of perspective on how pointless it would be to complain about UTC/GMT.

            • This may explain the lack of outrage more than an enhanced sense of perspective on how pointless it would be to complain about UTC/GMT.

              Eh, your probably right (about Americans not being able to find it on a map), but it's still a damn good analogy if I do say so myself.

              The Brits got to define the prime meridian because they were the economic/naval power of the period. The United States got some American-only TLDs (.edu, .mil and .gov) because we got the internet going. I really don't see what the fuss is about, other then maybe it annoys a few people that they don't have to type '.us' on the end of these sites. Is it really somethin

    • Then that would be a whitewash of their true intents. If there's any info to be gathered by DNS lookups, then it's not that hard to manually distribute an IP address instead.

    • in other words, a way to gather info of people.

      Need some more tinfoil for that hat? Exactly what does ICANN do that would be useful in "gathering info" on people? Finding out which domains they own and which IP addressing space they have?

      You might have had a better point if you had said 'AT&T is a way to gather info on people'. ICANN itself is kind of useless in this regard.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.