This week, The Register ran a story on how the US supposedly had given up its 'control' over ICANN. ICANN, the body which assigns IP addresses and domain names worldwide, currently falls under the US Commerce Department via a contractual agreement; this means the US government can control ICANN. El Reg claimed the US had given up this control; Ars was quick to respond, stating that "the existing arrangement was likely to continue, at least for another year." Since the US had stated that it wanted to fully privatise ICANN by 2000, we'll have to wait and see what ICANN looks like in a year. In the meantime, do we really want the US to open up ICANN?
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-14
And yet, you are demanding control over OUR networks through ICANN. You seem to think that Americans have laid all the internet cables/routers/hubs in the world!
No I'm not. I think that countries should be free to do whatever they want with their network. How am I demanding control of it? Is the US telling other countries what content they can and cannot have? Would you want the UN to control it with nations such as China having input?
What benefit do you really think we'd have if ICANN were controlled by a body like the UN?
In your article, you said:
However, the problem with governmental control is that a government is not supported by 100% of a country's population, let alone that of the entire planet--
What's your point? People will always disagree no matter who is control. Anarchy is not good. That's the beauty of democracy - elected officials who represent the majority of the country's citizens' interests of views. If they don't, then they don't get re-elected.
Also, you wrote about the "personal feelings" of the US government when it came to the .xxx domain. The .xxx was a lame idea, and wouldn't have done any good, and would have caused more problems. The reason for that is because ICANN would then have to deal with censorship on its own, determining what is porn, and what isn't. A company that sold clothes, along with sex toys, could be forced to move over to .xxx because of it's pornographic merchandise? Who makes the call on that? You said it would do "no good nor no harm", however, you'd be forcing censorship on certain domains. Censorship is bad.
Member since:2005-06-29
Is the US telling other countries what content they can and cannot have?
YES! ICANN gives out domain names and IP adresses to countries, did you not know that?? That is the whole problem!
What benefit do you really think we'd have if ICANN were controlled by a body like the UN?
AAARGGGHHH. You are really pushing my limits here, buddy. READ, for crying out loud. WHERE did I say the UN should control ICANN? WHERE?
Also, you wrote about the "personal feelings" of the US government when it came to the .xxx domain. The .xxx was a lame idea, and wouldn't have done any good, and would have caused more problems.
I give up. You seem to have not read my column well at all. Let me simply repost the relevant part of my column:
"The whole .xxx domain saga has showed us that the US government exerts quite a bit of control over the direction of ICANN. ICANN had approved a plan to setup the .xxx domain in June 2005, but after concerns raised by the US government over the apparent 'legitimisation' of the adult industry, ICANN reversed that decision on May 10th of this year. And that is just plain scary, to me.
The usefulness of the .xxx domain is highly debatable. I too think it would do nor good nor harm to the internet. However, that is completely besides the point of the US controlling the internet. The fact of the matter is that the US government, inspired by its own personal feelings towards the adult industry, has influenced a decision making process that should in fact be free of governmental control. Remember, to illustrate the extent of control the US government has over ICANN, that the decision, as well as the plans to execute it, had already been made. Please note that this is not about the outcome of the decision itself; I would be equally worried if it had been the other way around (the US government reversing a decision by ICANN to not create a .xxx domain)."
Member since:
2005-06-29
That's an Apples and Oranges comparison Thom. To use railroads in the comparison, then the US would have to be demanding control over Britian's railroads. The US built it's railroads itself. In this case with the Internet, other countries are demanding control over something another country built.
And yet, you are demanding control over OUR networks through ICANN. You seem to think that Americans have laid all the internet cables/routers/hubs in the world!