Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ICANN's Cozy Relationship With the US Must End, Says EU

Unknown Lamer posted about 8 months ago | from the feeling-left-out dept.

EU 193

alphadogg writes "The exclusive relationship of ICANN with the U.S. must end, said the European Union's digital agenda chief on Wednesday. California-based ICANN is responsible for the assignment of top-level domains and has a long-standing operating agreement with the U.S. However, following the revelations by Edward Snowden of widespread surveillance of the Internet by the National Security Agency, many countries have questioned the arrangement. The historical relationship, noted in ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments, is outdated and the governance of the Internet must become more global, said the E.U. Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes. Kroes was presenting the European Commission's new policy on Internet governance, which rejects any United Nations or governmental takeover of Internet governance and calls for a move to globalize ICANN."

cancel ×

193 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Huh? (3, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | about 8 months ago | (#46228693)

I'm failing to understand the issue here. Anything ICANN does is essentially public. Any changes to domain IP addresses have to propagate out to everyone, so it's not like they could cause traffic to be arbitrarily rerouted, etc. Sounds like just another straw man attempt to get the ICANN out of the US.

Re:Huh? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228749)

US invented the internet, we get that little bonus. It's like a unique wonder in Civ 5. This country gets the bonuses, end of story. If your country colonizes the moon or something, you get those benefits.

UK invented HTTP. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228785)

So we get that little bonus.

We inveted your language. We get that little bonus.

France invented your democratic process. They get that little bonus.

Scotland invented the TV, they get that little bonus.

Oh, no, you're merkins, therefore American Exceptionalism To The RESCUE!!!!

Re:UK invented HTTP. (2, Informative)

Puls4r (724907) | about 8 months ago | (#46228845)

Despite your sarcasm, you're right.

The countries that invented that particular item can go ahead and specify anything they want inside their borders. If countries outside those borders don't like it, then they can ignore it.

ICANN is no different. Don't like it? Then go make your own. Just because the internet has gained universal acceptance doesn't mean you get a say in how it's administered in the US. There is nothing saying you can't stick a bunch computers between your country and the internet and administer everything inside your own borders any way you want. If you want it to work on *our* internet, then make it compatible with ICANN. If not, get out.

Am I being rude? Yes. Because I'm pretty sure ANY country would react the same way to a bunch of other countries constantly whining about something like this. It took hold in the US first, and we went through creating the system so it works. You guys plugged in. If you don't like it - then unplug.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 8 months ago | (#46229197)

Of course you are right, but we in the US also have a vested interest in keeping the internet coherent as much as possible. Giving the EU more control might eventually be in our best interest. After all, we, too, can always separate from them if they steer in a direction that we do not like.

What I absolutely do not support is UN control. The UN is primarily there to prevent nuclear powers from going to war, and thus far it has done a fine job of that. Most of the members are shitheads with far more restrictive speech laws than the US. The EU, on the other hand, really only differs from the US in hate speech. If they could be persuaded to not enforce hate speech laws through ICANN, I don't have a problem with giving them influence.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (2)

Anonyme Connard (218057) | about 8 months ago | (#46229561)

The EU, on the other hand, really only differs from the US in hate speech

They also differ in many things considered as "outrageous" or "inappropriate" in the US and not in the EU.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 8 months ago | (#46230387)

Yes, though the US in turn seems to weigh copyright claims very heavily. In any case, my ideal for ICANN is that it not be used as a censorship tool. There should be concrete rules for proper records and settling ownership disputes, and that's about it. If a government wants to censor a site, they should refer to the proper records and act if it is within their jurisdiction.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 8 months ago | (#46230269)

Most of the [UN] members are shitheads with far more restrictive speech laws than the US.

Exactly. The call for "control of the Internet" to go to the UN is really a call by some countries to outlaw anything online that they find offensive/inconvenient/annoying/etc. I can post a rant about President Obama using horrible language and even some claims that have been disproved a dozen times and I'm perfectly fine unless I make a threat on his life. In which case, expect a visit from the Secret Service as it is their job to protect the President's life. Even then, you might not be immediately arrested depending on their threat assessment. Do the same thing in China, for example, (criticize the leaders without threatening violence) and you might not be as lucky. Do it in North Korea and both you and your family will be very "unlucky." However, I - within the United States - can criticize the Saudi government all I want with no repercussions and they don't want this. If they had their way, this would be an offense worthy of extraditing me to their country over to stand trial. (Even if you had a decent chance of not being extradited, the threat along would be enough to quiet most people.) In other words, the Internet under UN control (and thus under these nations' influences) would become a draconian environment subject to the strictest laws of any land it might possibly reach.

Is the US perfect? Of course not. But these countries are far, far worse and letting them decide what should be legal or illegal online would be a huge mistake.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (2)

sudden.zero (981475) | about 8 months ago | (#46229247)

Amen, brother! If you don't like it then unplug your Ethernet cable and GTFO!

Re:UK invented HTTP. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#46229261)

To some extent I agree with you. I even feel that, for all its flaws, the US is probably a more reliable steward of the Internet than just about any other nation or international body I can think of.

At the same time, if we allow the Internet to be fractured even more than it already is, we will lose one of the great technological innovations of the latter half of the 20th century.

So I sit on the fence over the whole thing, not really all the keen that some international body, some of whose members will be nations highly toxic to a free Internet (which seems to be a growing number of nations, sadly), but wanting to see the whole thing busted in to pieces of various degrees of interoperability.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229537)

I even feel that, for all its flaws, the US is probably a more reliable steward of the Internet than just about any other nation or international body I can think of.

Switzerland, Sweden, Finland... heck, the majority of the more neutrality-oriented European countries.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (2)

jythie (914043) | about 8 months ago | (#46229587)

The thing about nice neutral countries though is they rarely fight to be put in charge of things. I would love to see, for instance, Denmark put in charge of ICANN, but they are not about to wrestle it away from the US and no one strong enough to make the US back down is going to just hand it off to a country that might be responsible with it.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46230421)

So I sit on the fence over the whole thing, not really all the keen that some international body, some of whose members will be nations highly toxic to a free Internet (which seems to be a growing number of nations, sadly)

so you don't see Americas need to monitor everything everyone does everywhere all the time toxic to a free internet? The difference is your regime has you convinced they support your interests more than anyone else, which is just a fallacy.

I'd pick the EU over US for long term control of the internet the US has too many agendas and has proven to be not trust worthy

Re:UK invented HTTP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46230241)

Of course, you are not right. US does not want you to have any other ICANN server but the one hosted in US.

You see, your logic is flawed by design, lol.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 8 months ago | (#46228903)

What does it have to do with exceptionalism? This is like when people biatch at a developer to make a change for them because they don't like the developers decisions. I'm sorry, but it's the developer's software.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (1, Offtopic)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 8 months ago | (#46229213)

Duuuude, don't say that. People will think you're defending the Slashdot Beta and that it's their site to do what they want with.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229275)

It's when you don't notice the hypocrisy because it's YOU doing it

"China is jailing whistleblowers too!" But at least China isn't claiming to be the Leader of the Free World.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 8 months ago | (#46230045)

That's a term that hasn't been in use since the Cold War. Obama certainly has never called himself that, nor Bush

Re:UK invented HTTP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth

I think the mormon's invented the useful TV.

I thought WWW as just a version of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29

if you can believe someone can invent some incremental improvement to software.

if so then these guys might be involved:

http://compnetworking.about.com/od/networkprotocolsip/l/bl_ipinvent.htm , IP on everything?

I don't agree with ICann being in complete controll, but then again I do not agree with how signed keys work in the world of the NSA either.

Farnsworth- one of many [Re:UK invented HTTP.] (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 8 months ago | (#46229333)

So we get that little bonus.
We inveted your language. We get that little bonus.
France invented your democratic process. They get that little bonus.
Scotland invented the TV, they get that little bonus. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth
I think the mormon's invented the useful TV....

Well, partly. Much as I love Philo T. Farnsworth:

inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Television.htm [about.com]

But, actually, Scottland has a decent claim. From that universal reference source, Wikipedia (and if you don't like what they say, write something else!):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television [wikipedia.org]

"On March 25, 1925, Scottish inventor John Logie Baird gave the first public demonstration of televised silhouette images in motion, at Selfridge's Department Store in London.[7] AT&T's Bell Telephone Laboratories transmitted halftone still images of transparencies in May 1925. On June 13 of that year, Charles Francis Jenkins transmitted the silhouette image of a toy windmill in motion, over a distance of five miles from a naval radio station in Maryland to his laboratory in Washington, D.C., using a lensed disk scanner with a 48-line resolution.[8][9]

However, if television is defined as the live transmission of moving images with continuous tonal variation, Baird first achieved this privately on October 2, 1925. But strictly speaking, Baird had not yet achieved moving images for his scanner worked at only five images per second, below the threshold required to give the illusion of motion, usually defined as at least 12 images per second. By January, he had improved the scan rate to 12.5 images per second.[citation needed] Then on January 26, 1926 Baird gave what is widely recognized as being the world's first demonstration of a working television system, to members of the Royal Institution and a newspaper reporter from The Times, at his laboratory in 22 Frith Street, Soho, London.[10] Unlike later electronic systems with several hundred lines of resolution, Baird's vertically scanned image, using a scanning disk embedded with a double spiral of lenses, had only 30 lines, just enough to reproduce a recognizable human face.

In 1927, Baird transmitted a signal over 438 miles (705 km) of telephone line between London and Glasgow..."

Farnsworth's first demo was September 1927, by the way, so all of this precedes his public demo.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229013)

Oh, you forgot to bitch about the US getting to have country code number 1 in the telephone system. God what arrogant exceptionalists!

Re:UK invented HTTP. (1)

houghi (78078) | about 8 months ago | (#46229345)

There is a technical reason for that. The same reason for the area code 212. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org] :
  To save time for its operators given the rotary dialing technology of the time, the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and Bell System tried to keep the number of "clicks" to a minimum for larger cities.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46230285)

You forgot to mention that the basketball was invented in Canada. LOL.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229015)

We inveted your language. We get that little bonus.

Which is why you maintain control of the Oxford English Dictionary. When we became America we didn't like it, so Daniel Webster made our own Americanized dictionary, instead of trying to insert our opinions/culture into your dictionary. You're free to do the same with whatever shitty network you have inside your borders.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (1)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 8 months ago | (#46229577)

It was Noah who put the dictionary together. His brother Daniel, the senator, pushed the "copyrightz" law so his bro could "make money". It was all about business. And that's how, ladies and gentlemen, you first got a copyright law in US.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229069)

So we get that little bonus.

We inveted your language. We get that little bonus.

France invented your democratic process. They get that little bonus.

Scotland invented the TV, they get that little bonus.

Oh, no, you're merkins, therefore American Exceptionalism To The RESCUE!!!!

HTTP was invented by a Brit who was funded by CERN, not the UK government.

The English language wasn't 'invented' by anyone, but was a hodgepodge of Germanic seasoned with a little dash of Celtic influence and some French (which came from Latin).

Democracy was invented in Athens long before there was a France.

A Scotsman gave the first live demonstration of Television based on work done by a bunch of other people from various countries including France and Russia. He wasn't funded by the UK government.

The Internet was built based on work done by DARPA and funded by the US government.

So...what was your point? That you have no idea about the history of various inventions, or that you're not even good at making straw man arguements? :)

Re:UK invented HTTP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229205)

So how is the great dns firewall of the UK working out for you? How many sites have they had to 'bless'/whitelist? How about china? How about france? Lets put it frankly. Other countries want the US to give up control so *they* can have control. Why do they want control? Is it because ICANN is doing something wrong? Or is it because they will not do something they want to subvert their own people so they dont 'see bad things'?

Re:UK invented HTTP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229423)

So we get that little bonus.

We inveted your language. We get that little bonus.

France invented your democratic process. They get that little bonus.

Scotland invented the TV, they get that little bonus.

Oh, no, you're merkins, therefore American Exceptionalism To The RESCUE!!!!

Congrats on inventing one of the many protocols that make up the Internet..... and you didn't invent the language. Language is something that evolves over time with contributions from many, many sources and cultures.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (1)

jythie (914043) | about 8 months ago | (#46229601)

Well, except Esperanto.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229453)

So we get that little bonus.

We inveted your language. We get that little bonus.

A. You would be the first Britain I've ever heard that wants to take credit for American English. You really want to do that? But sure, the world can blame you instead.

B. Points, the choice of 'inveted' while claiming a language is gutsy.

PS

France invented your democratic process. They get that little bonus.

Won't you give Greece a chance?

Re:UK invented HTTP. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229735)

The US has more nuclear weapons. They get that little bonus.

But they are still a colony, so you get that little bonus.

Re:UK invented HTTP. (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 8 months ago | (#46230317)

You didn't invent the language. It evolved from a conglomeration of Germanic, French, and Latin.

Re:Huh? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 8 months ago | (#46228923)

Making the initial roads is not the same as making the cars that go in it or owning the people that drive them, the content is what makes internet special, and it was made by every internet user, including you with your comment. Inventing the "a" letter don't make you owner/author of every book ever written.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46230465)

I'm the troll from above high on the list, SO much to respond to but here goes one more:

If i invented the original roads that everyone built standards to (lane width, side of the road, etc) then you want to take control of that away and change it and "make it better", fine, do that IN YOUR COUNTRY. We feel the roads are fine here. Also, way to drive on the wrong side of the roads dipshits.

It has nothing to do with exceptionalism or we invented the letter "a" so we are owners of all books, etc. ICANN is a FUNCTIONING body that currently effectively runs the internet, is here, and we made it. It'd be more like if the toll booths in your country were made by us and you decided to make your own so you didn't have to play by our toll booths standards or fees. You're free to do that. Not just to the whole internet, make your own UKnet or some other filtered garbage.

Hate on the US for all it's flaws, but free speech here is one of the most unrestricted on earth, and that's the reason no one else gets their grubby hands on it. Anyone else with even more lax free speech laws is too small not to be bullied.

So basically, it's ours right now, and we're big enough to hold on to it, so unless someone else bigger comes and bullies us, then it will stay that way. That's just the world as it is. And the way surveillance and filtering and whatnot is in the EU and elsewhere, i'm OK with that.

HAHA! Captcha: immunity

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | about 8 months ago | (#46229135)

Do you trust the US government? If so you are the only one that does.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229303)

Despite my support for what the UN does, in this matter I trust the US Govt more than I do the UN.

If you think US politics has a bad influence on ICANN, wait until you see what international politics will do to it.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229713)

Exactly which department of the US government do you think ICANN is a part of?

Re:Huh? World Wide Web. The world’s first p (1)

pigsycyberbully (3450203) | about 8 months ago | (#46229299)

US invented the internet, we get that little bonus. It's like a unique wonder in Civ 5. This country gets the bonuses, end of story. If your country colonizes the moon or something, you get those benefits.

The inventor of the television: http://www.televisionheaven.co... [televisionheaven.co.uk] http://www.televisionheaven.co... [televisionheaven.co.uk] The world’s first programmable electronic computer Tommy Flowers, Flowers was born at 160 Abbot Road, Poplar in London’s East End on 22 December 1905, the son of a bricklayer. Thomas “Tommy” Harold Flowers, MBE (22 December 1905 – 28 October 1998) was a British engineer. During World War II, Flowers designed Colossus, the world’s first programmable electronic computer, to help solve encrypted German messages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] World Wide Web http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Huh? World Wide Web. The world’s first p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46230365)

The inventor of the computer is actually John Atanasoff: http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?category=cmptr

He claimed, successfully, the title, but lost the war, as the idea was declared un-patentable.

xxxxx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229667)

Well the US standardise the first international network that we know as the internet, computer networks had been around in multitudes at the same time. So yes, well done, its very nice and we love the internet. However, the UK and CERN invented the WWW (yes invested because it wasnt a deterministic invention like the internet) and WWW is pretty much synonymous with domain names.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228797)

ICANN also controls the creation of new gTLDs.

Pretty convenient that they can create new gTLDs like ".walmart" or ".amazon" for US corporations, huh?

But they didn't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228877)

.amazon didn't get approval.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/amazon-rejected-as-domain-name-after-south-american-objections/

Re:Huh? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 8 months ago | (#46229095)

Pretty convenient that the first of the new gTLDs approved were in Arabic, Chinese and Russian.

See: http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

Re:Huh? (0)

rjstanford (69735) | about 8 months ago | (#46229313)

Pretty convenient that none of the old ones were. Correcting an oversight doesn't get you bonus prizes for being so generous.

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228861)

The standards are open for anyone to make their own [nation]net. With that in mind, it sure looks like everyone is leeching off the US-net and then whining that it isn't being twisted to their favored totalitarianisms and oppressions.

We have a special salute prepared for this kind of demand, and 90% of our citizens practice it regularly.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 8 months ago | (#46228895)

Worse than that. A lot of countries outside the US would likely use ICANN to restrict content. China might want to restrict websites which talk about all sorts of things. European countries would want to restrict hate speech and Holocaust denial. Islamic countries would want to restrict blasphemous websites. Etc. For all the many faults of the US, ICANN is one thing that must stay in US hands if we value free speech.

This was inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228997)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Cloud tied to geography, chinese walls between subsidiaries and parent corporations, criminal penalties for cooperating with foreign intelligence agencies - it's all going to happen. All of it.

By 2016, being a US-based IT corporation will make sales close to impossible.

Re:Huh? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 8 months ago | (#46229757)

Any changes to domain IP addresses...

I don't think that's the only thing ICANN does all day, is it?

Anything ICANN does is essentially public.

What about their reasons for doing what they do (do)?

Re:Huh? (2)

ChadL (880878) | about 8 months ago | (#46229829)

One problem with ICANN now is that they hold the root DNSSEC keys, so anyone who controls the strings of ICANN can spoof otherwise secured DNS records (and the associated SSH/PGP/HTTPS key pinning done with said records). The NSA, for example, I'm sure would be interested in the ability to man in the middle domains that are seen as important (ones that someone bothered to sign with DNSSEC).
I'm also sure that the GCHQ is equally interested in getting their hands on said keys.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46230161)

And where are these servers hosted? And who the saying about the traffic through them?

Just a political statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228713)

The U.S. invented the system. It wouldn't be any better regardless of which country or entity "controlled" it.

De-centralized DNS would be better.

Re:Just a political statement (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46228751)

If you had made it to the end of the summary, you'd see that they are in fact asking for decentralisation and reject the role of the UN or any other single body in its operation.

Re:Just a political statement (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 8 months ago | (#46228995)

But who will then collect all the money for those TLD's?

Re:Just a political statement (2)

1s44c (552956) | about 8 months ago | (#46229221)

They want the current DNS hierarchy to be split into different hierarchies that all follow the same model. They want to turn US control into country or EU control. Same nonsense, different tyrants.

What the world needs is something peer2peer and cryptographically strong.

Re:Just a political statement (1)

The123king (2395060) | about 8 months ago | (#46228753)

And the world Wide Web was invented by a brit in Switzerland. That doesn't mean that the Brits and the Swiss should have a monopoly over the control of it, hence why the W3C was created.

It's time the US did the right thing and opened up ICANN as an internationally let consortium, instead of a consortium that puts domestic needs first.

Re:Just a political statement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228775)

It's time the US did the right thing and opened up ICANN as an internationally let consortium, instead of a consortium that puts domestic needs first.

It time the EU did the right thing and went and fucked itself.

Re:Just a political statement (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 8 months ago | (#46229127)

It's time the US did the right thing and opened up ICANN as an internationally let consortium, instead of a consortium that puts domestic needs first.

It time the EU did the right thing and went and fucked itself.

Metaphorically speaking by not keeping a check on the spending of some of the Southern countries (Greece and Spain spring to mind) - it has.

Re:Just a political statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229157)

It time the EU did the right thing and went and fucked itself.

Oh you don't have to worry about that issue, the EU has been fucking itself hard for quite awhile now.
Just ask the Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians and Irish about how pounded they feel.

So the US still has to do the right thing, because the Europeans have been at it for quite awhile.

Re:Just a political statement (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 8 months ago | (#46229607)

You've got it backwards. It's the Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians and Irish that are pounding their benefactors to the north.

That might change, but I doubt it. So far it's all theater.

Re:Just a political statement (1)

1s44c (552956) | about 8 months ago | (#46229251)

It time the EU did the right thing and went and fucked itself.

What happened to thinking win-win? You suggest the US should remain the power hungry tyrant, the EU wants a new power hungry tyrant.

A decent peer2peer DNS reimplementation would remove the need for any tyrants at all.

Re:Just a political statement (1)

1s44c (552956) | about 8 months ago | (#46229193)

De-centralized DNS would be better.

That would be the only true solution. The current DNS setup sucks.

NameCoin was the only workable distributed DNS solution I've seen, and it never prevented the domain squatting problem. Do you know of any better projects?

China has the right idea. (1)

The123king (2395060) | about 8 months ago | (#46228725)

The best way to stop spying is to not let any connections to foreign websites. Whilst i'm not one for great firewalls or suchlike (and as a brit i despise David Macaroon's internet filtering policy) maybe it's time to start filtering connections from certain countries. If the EU is so worked up about America controlling the internet (which it does) maybe it's time to set up a Euronet and filter connection to and from the US. Would it help keep the internet free? No. But the internet will never be free whilst it's run by a single country.

Curtail the NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228743)

I don't see how making governance more globalized would have curtailed NSA surveillance.

I am though concerned about globalizing it - let alone having the UN have control. I would be afraid that countries like: Saudi Arabia, China, N. Korea, Iran, and every other backwards oppressive totalitarian regime out there would be doing what they can to REDUCE the innovation and freedom of the Internet. Although, Net Neutrality is a bit of a battle I am not so sure globalizing ICANN's role would get it through.

new policy (0)

stenvar (2789879) | about 8 months ago | (#46228757)

The proposal calls for more transparent, accountable and inclusive governance.

Yeah, as "transparent" as the EU and its swarms of diplomats and lobbyists. As "inclusive" as the UN, which is primarily composed of representatives of totalitarian regimes.

Kroes said: “Some are calling for the International Telecommunications Union to take control of key Internet functions. I agree that governments have a crucial role to play, but top-down approaches are not the right answer.

That's a smokescreen. Of course, European governments want to get their grubby hands on Internet functions and governance.

In the wake of large-scale Internet surveillance and reduced trust in the internet, the European Commission today proposes a key reform to the way the Internet is managed and run. ... We must strengthen the multi-stakeholder model to preserve the Internet as a fast engine for innovation.”

How is one related to the other? No matter what you think of NSA surveillance (and European nations seemed to like it as long as it was hush-hush), you can hardly accuse the US of not having maintained the Internet as a "fast engine for innovation".

Hahahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228767)

no.

Lost cause (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228779)

I've given up on the internet. Anyone with any sense must consider the internet and its governing structures openly hostile. It doesn't matter which entity controls ICANN: Private or public, multinational or unilateral. They're all trying to push their own agendas. The only hope for a better network is decentralization, and not just politically: The infrastructure itself and the services on top must be decentralized. It is not a matter of who controls ICANN. The problem is that ICANN needs to exist in the first place.

The winner! [Re:Lost cause] (2)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 8 months ago | (#46229377)

I've given up on the internet.

Posting "I've given up on the internet" on the internet wins today's oxymoron prize.

Re:The winner! [Re:Lost cause] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46230169)

I haven't stopped using the internet. I just have no hope anymore that it won't deteriorate into a TV 2.0, with an extra helping of surveillance, censorship and sabotage. There's a subtle difference between "giving up something" and "giving up on something".

How about No? Does "No" work for you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228783)

As in "No, we're not going to let the Eurocrats get their sticky fingers on ICANN."

What part of "we invented it" don't they get (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228787)

The Internet is on a natural course to balkanization. The sooner ICANN gets deposed and a rival international body gets set up the better.

Re:What part of "we invented it" don't they get (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229567)

What part of "we invented it" makes you own it?

Miles of cable between India and Australia. Not one farthing owned or paid for by the USA, but you own it?!?!?!?

All that's needed is for everyone else to ignore ICANN's root servers in their own regional server and then tell ICANN to GTFO when it comes to internet names. You don't own that kid and it's only INTERNATIONAL *AGREEMENT* that means they respect ICANN's authoritative nature. If the USA doesn't agree with the rest of the world, there is FUCK ALL ICANN or the USA can do to make the world's internet obey ICANN's root servers.

Harbinger of disaster? (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 8 months ago | (#46228831)

Right now, everyone is in an uproar over Net Neutrality, how (at the moment) we don't have it, and how the few big ISPs are going to ruin the Internet, turning it into another version of the Walled Gardens of the pre-Internet era. However we, once again, are just being distracted by this from the real threat: the rest of the world. We here in the U.S. need to remember: We're just a single-digit percentage of the world's total population, yet we've got (at the moment, anyway) an inordinate amount of power of the shape and direction of the Internet as a whole. In a moment of lucidity, one must ask the oneself: How long can this go on? It's not just possible, but probable, that the rest of the world will eventually have a say in the shape and nature of the Internet as a whole. What will it look like in 20 years? I personally don't think that the U.N. is the body that should have control over the course and form of the Internet any more than I think that the Olympics are just about athletic competition and not politics -- a comparison I'm making on purpose because that's what the Olympics are about: politics, and having the United Nations in control of the Internet would turn the Internet into just another political tool. I do not have the vision to know who (or what) should shape the future of the Internet, but I do recognize what a critical time in the Internet's history this moment in time is.

If not the UN then who? (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 8 months ago | (#46228911)

We're just a single-digit percentage of the world's total population, yet we've got (at the moment, anyway) an inordinate amount of power of the shape and direction of the Internet as a whole.

I think the power of ICANN and the US is rather greatly overstated when it comes to the internet.

I personally don't think that the U.N. is the body that should have control over the course and form of the Internet

Ok, fair enough. Who should then? I hear this all the time how people dislike the UN for various reasons that they always seem unable to articulate but honestly I can't think of any other body better positioned to play quasi-neutral arbiter. Of course politics are going to play a role - doesn't matter who ultimately is the controlling body. If you don't like the UN filling this role then who else do you propose?

Re:If not the UN then who? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 8 months ago | (#46229675)

The UN's general assembly is a democratic body with one vote for each participating government. Most of the governments of the world are broken.

Ergo the general assembly is broken. Look at what the general assembly does on a day to day basis and you will find confirmation.

Most people that understand the UN could explain this to you. Perhaps you weren't listening?

Get your own Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228865)

Seriously....

Re:Get your own Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228981)

If this isn't solved amicably, then it will be "solved" by doing just that: Everybody getting their own "internet". If that's what you want, good for you, because the US is not going to give up ICANN.

Come, US and EU... (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 8 months ago | (#46228873)

Go to war, bomb each other to pieces, do the world a favour, will ya? There's a billion more people who can't wait to shit on the ruins. Do it already, but do it properly: first bombs, then firearms, then gouge each others' eyes with screwdrivers. Not just soldiers, let the civilian join in the frenzy, will you? After all the euros hate the murkins' guts and vice versa. Come on, do it, spill each other's blood. Cross the line. You'll be so much better when you're dead, and the rest of the world will, too. No more stupid murkins. No more smug euros. Two shitbirds with one stone. Do it.

Headline (1)

Dan East (318230) | about 8 months ago | (#46228933)

The headline should read:
ICANN's Cozy Relationship With the US Must End, Says ____________ [insert name of any country not spelled "United States of America" here]

Globalize where? (3, Insightful)

quietwalker (969769) | about 8 months ago | (#46228935)

So the problem seems to be that ICANN is an american corporation, and thus subject to the laws of the US, and that in turn, could be used against foreign powers?

The solution then is to 'globalize' it? Where is it going to be 'globalized' to? Which country could it exist in where it would have immunity to any laws and act with impunity in regards to them?

When I see the complaints against it by China, Russia, the EU, and so on, they're always advocating more restrictions, protection of their interests. They want the ability to blacklist sites that talk about their politicians, that discuss unfavorable religions or religious rights, that cover alternative lifestyles such as gay or transgender, and so on. They want to do it without arbitration, automatically.

What they really are complaining about is that they don't have absolute control over it, and they want it. Everything else is just a pleasant lie or deliberate misdirection.

Let's be fair; the US has more than it's fair share of faults, but our definition of freedom is still incredibly wide reaching compared with the vast majority of countries in the world, and we're big enough to make it hard to push us around with political power alone. That's the big problem they're seeing. ... besides, use of the current DNS registry system is entirely voluntary. There's nothing to stop someone from coming up with their own, like the TOR network did. If it's better, people will use it over the current one. Though, I think they realize that any replacement that is more strictly controlled will never be considered 'better', so they need to subvert the current one.

Re:Globalize where? (2)

sahuxley (2617397) | about 8 months ago | (#46229635)

A bit of a sidetrack, but this is what most disappointed me about the whole NSA surveillance thing. We (the US) have probably the greatest ability of any country to protect freedom on the internet and be a force for free speech and expression in the world, yet our trampling of the 4th amendment is squandering that. We *claim* to bring freedom to other countries with guns and bombs, yet fail an opportunity to bring it to them with technology and computers.

"Must" does not mean what you think it means (3, Funny)

sirwired (27582) | about 8 months ago | (#46228947)

The US "must" do this? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I can see why the EU and/or UN would want the US to give up control over the ICANN contract, but every time this comes up, I have yet to see a single reason presented as to why the US would agree to do it.

Diplomacy involves the practical application of either the proverbial Carrot or Stick or Both. "Do this or I'll write further Official Letters demanding it" is not much of a stick, and it certainly isn't a carrot.

Re: "Must" does not mean what you think it means (1, Insightful)

SLi (132609) | about 8 months ago | (#46230037)

It's quite simple really: The US cannot prevent losing control, but they can have it happen in an orderly way and perhaps get a better position in the resulting system.

You see, it's not like there is some magical Key To the Internet which is stored in a bunker in Oregon and which you can choose to either hand over or not. It's also not something you really can defend with guns to prevent other countries from having it.

It's rather more like having control over the rules of international air traffic. If you do it well and neutrally enough, it might be that few countries are annoyed that they don't have a say in the process you have set up for writing the rules. But you have no way of really enforcing those rules except inside your own borders.

Currently ICANN which drafts the rules (and works as the judges) for the Internet is for historical reasons set up as a US entity. It having control over the Internet means no more and no less than all countries deciding to implement their decisions.

The reason why ICANN still has control and the reason for this statement by the EU is that other countries are still hoping for a negotiated solution, because that's generally the way the civilized world works. The US might be in a slightly better position to negotiate than other countries, but if it refuses to negotiate, it will surely lose that advantage. An orderly solution would be in everybody's interests, while more unilateral action would harm everyone.

The orderly way to proceed would be to continue with ICANN, just internationalized. The disorderly way might be setting up a parallel organization and start disregarding ICANN.

Still you must realize it's a pipe dream that a single country with a few percent of world population could keep the right to make the rules for much longer. So sad you Americans feel offended about this. The rest of the world doesn't really think it's even asking for anything that in any meaningful sense belongs to you when they ask to have a say.

LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228957)

Icann is probably more global than any other group out there. It has about 2/3 of the nations involved. The CEO is lebanonese who naturalized to america. The top ppl of icann that makes decisions are from all over. Other than being based in USA, it is already global.

Re:LOL (1)

davecb (6526) | about 8 months ago | (#46229195)

And the US congress is annoyed because of ICANN's new regional headquarters in Istanbul (;-))

Re: LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229317)

And Singapore as well. And this was BEFORE snowden. So icann is already a global entity. In fact, w3c should do the same and break into multiple HQ.

US stewardship sucks less (1)

Millennium (2451) | about 8 months ago | (#46228975)

The stewardship the US has exercised has been far from perfect, and recent years have shown it to be even worse than previously believed. But for all that, even within the context of recent revelations, it has still proven considerably less-intolerable of a steward than any other proposal yet put forward.

For all the EU's talk of Internet freedom, most nations have moved to curtail it within their own borders, and their efforts have achieved considerably more support within their borders than the corresponding efforts of the US: not a good sign. The UN-based proposals, meanwhile, are almost universally fronted by foxes seeking employment as henhouse guards, and not only does the UN lack any provisions to exclude them from this kind of power, it considers this a feature, not a bug. Allowing a body like that control over communication simply is not sane: too many foxes will hold too much of the power too much of the time. And then there is the move by the BRIC nations to set up "their own Internet," which suffers the same problems as the UN proposal, only with the the foxes enshrined permanently at the top of the heap.

With these options, what's left? The US has shown that it cannot be trusted, but there are degrees of untrustworthiness, and while the publicly-known actions of the US are inexcusable, every other nation or group that has put forth a bid to succeed it openly intends to do far worse. The US is simply the best of a bad lot, and with no other lots coming down the pipeline, I see no other solution for now.

Re:US stewardship sucks less (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46230205)

I think you are underestimating the level of distrust there is for the US at the moment. I can't really think of any entity I would trust less in the "can I trust them not to abuse this power in every way they can think of"-way (in the competence-sense, certainly). As you stated, it is not like this is not deserved. And there has already been several "second chances".

This thread is full of snarky comments like "then why don't you then start your own, we invented this" and this is what I fully expect to happen. In a year there will be a story about the plans put in motion for starting a "competing" entity with snarky comments about "stupid politicians" and then finally "about how much it sucks that there are several entities" and "why the politicians with their own agendas..." And while most of us won't be exactly thrilled, it is something I'd (silently) support, nevermind the details.

While it is true that US isn't forced to act on this, I see this as a statement that the rest of the world (EU) are serious about this and a final warning of sorts. I fully expect USA to ignore it.

Expect DRONES soon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229017)

What a careless comment. Many were terminated for much less. He's now a target of US regime.

It's a trap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229125)

Lots of words but no real indication of what they actually want. What do they want to do that ICANN won't? Are they trying to hijack *.com? Or create useless new *.moneygrab top level domains? If they actually think ICANN has anything to do with spying or censorship, they don't understand how the internet protocols work. China didn't need ICANN's permission to build the great firewall.

Very Little Correlation (2)

opscure (1099393) | about 8 months ago | (#46229255)

I fail to see how internet addressing and numbering is directly related to the NSA (and GCHQ, which Neelie Kroes fails to mention) spying on individuals. Also the argument of agility seems a bit off too. Once you start adding a multitude of (governments) stakeholders to any project, things tend to slow down not become more agile.

Re:Very Little Correlation (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 8 months ago | (#46229371)

It's not related. They're just whiping up another argument to support their desires. This is standard politics, decide what you want, and tout what supports you (even if it tears at a different position you also simultaneously support) and vice-versa.

There is no entity out there -- not the UN, not "the world", not Europe (whatever that means) that has better protections than the US does. RoW (Rest of Wprld) has precious few legal obstacles to unlimited parliamentary authority, and their own abuse revelations suggest worse than the US does, and insofar as it's not, that's due to teechnological lag rather than some noble mindset.

Set that last point down in stone.

nice logic (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46229291)

Here's a big blast of logic for you: what country invented the majority of the internet's protocols, hardware, and design? Domain registrations really don't have a whole lot to do with spying either and that's the majority of what ICANN handles. The W3C has more of an impact on the actual internet.

Invent your own internet then (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about 8 months ago | (#46229421)

We invented the internet, if it wasn't for DARPA and Al Gore, there would be no ICANN. Just like with GPS. If you don't like the US version, build your own.

Nevermind that Europe, while better on privacy rights, is far worse on freedom of speech rights. Technical measures can help with privacy but it is very hard to overcome freedom of speech restrictions with software ('m talking rights to, not the ability to. Ability means nothing if it lands you in jail or your speech is removed)

Re:Invent your own internet then (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229631)

Nevermind that Europe, while better on privacy rights, is far worse on freedom of speech rights.

Not sure where you get this from, but I see this nonsense reiterated quite a bit here.
I'd be perfectly fine here sitting in the middle of Germany and saying that I'd like to see Israel get bombed flat or that the Jews are inferior people. Sure, people will think I'm an asshole, but there's no law against that. There is however a law that forbids you to claim that there was not a huge number of jews killed in WW2 or that concentration camps don't exist.
The French hate speech laws are of a similar nature, solving highly specific real world problems. One can debate the method of doing this via law, but in general European constitutions regard Free Speech as a paramount right, with verry narrow exceptions.

Here's something more closer to reality:

Nevermind that Europe, while miles better on privacy rights, is about equal (with few exceptions you'd have to hunt for) on freedom of speech rights.

captcha: nimble

Don't put a bandaid on it (1)

tom229 (1640685) | about 8 months ago | (#46229697)

DNS needs to be redesigned. The internet can't exist in a neutral state having one organization with control over any critical part of the network. Distributed DNS seems to be the answer.

Fuk The EU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46229859)

... Victoria Nuland

Put money where your mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46230063)

If the EU and world want more say in what ICANN does, then start sending more money.
It is the US taxes payers that started the Internet and the ICANN, it is about time for the world to start paying too.

No ITU (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about 8 months ago | (#46230125)

At least they appear to get it with regard to the UN; the US will never submit control of ICANN's many responsibilities to ITU or any other UN snuggery and deserves the eternal gratitude of the entire species for that profound wisdom.

So at least their "new policy" hasn't automatically obviated itself.

What does this have to do with Snowden? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46230191)

By far the most cynical reaction to the Snowden has been these hypocritical righteous-victim attempts to claw for power. Usually there's a slightly thicker thread of logical consistency than in this case!

ftr I'm unimpressed by almost everything in this area: ICANN itself which is a greedy pit of smarmy politics spending most of its time fighting to stay relevant and encouraging lazy media to speculatively overestimate their role. The EU with its smug and nonsensical "right to be forgotten," attempts to treat Google search results as a public service, foot-dragging ineffective response to Microsoft's use of monopoly to bully the industry, and their member states' relative lack of contribution to the Internet compared to the US. And the US, which now feels as vindictive and arbitrary in punishing its own citizens, as militarily-aggressive, and as insecure and clueless and full of patriotic morons as China, except with a bigger military and a stronger propaganda machine.

They can draw up all the resolutions they like... (1)

Chas (5144) | about 8 months ago | (#46230431)

But there's exactly jack and shit they can do if ICANN and the US tell them to fuck off.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?