Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

ICANN Wants Immunity

Posted by kdawson on Tue Apr 03, 2007 02:44 PM
from the divine-right-of-the-Commerce-Department dept.
The Internet Government Politics
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: DHS Wants Master Key for DNS 266 comments
An anonymous reader writes "At an ICANN meeting in Lisbon, the US Department of Homeland Security made it clear that it has requested the master key for the DNS root zone. The key will play an important role in the new DNSSec security extension, because it will make spoofing IP-addresses impossible. By forcing the IANA to hand out a copy of the master key, the US government will be the only institution that is able to spoof IP addresses and be able to break into computers connected to the Internet without much effort. There's a further complication, of course, because even 'if the IANA retains the key ... the US government still reserves the right to oversee ICANN/IANA. If the keys are then handed over to ICANN/IANA, there would be even less of an incentive [for the U.S.] to give up this role as a monitor. As a result, the DHS's demands will probably only heat up the debate about US dominance of the control of Internet resources.'"
[+] News: ICANN Writes US Government Requesting Independence 131 comments
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."
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 Wants Immunity 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Maybe they could bid for Sealand (Score:3, Funny)

    by vivaoporto (1064484) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @02:50PM (#18592961) Homepage
    Maybe they could bid for Sealand and create their own country. Or move to North Korean embassy [thepiratebay.org]. Seems to be a popular alternative now that U.S. is becoming very unfriendly to the Internet. But if they move, will they take the tubes with them, or will have to call contractors to install them again? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • yeah (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @02:50PM (#18592965) Homepage
    However, it's unlikely that the Bush administration would grant ICANN these privileges.

    So then it's more like ICANN'T, when you really think about it.

  • Immunity (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2007, @02:54PM (#18593047)
    Mr. President, ICANN is asking for immunity and a full presidential pardon, signed, in writing, before they tell us where the bombs are planted.

    Jack, this organization tried to KILL me!

    • More true to life. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2007, @03:04PM (#18593215)
      Mr. President, ICANN is asking for immunity and a full presidential pardon, signed, in writing, before they tell us where the authcodes are with our Registerfly [registerflies.com] domain names.

  • Red Cross???? (Score:3, Informative)

    by micronicos (344307) * on Tuesday April 03 2007, @02:56PM (#18593087) Homepage
    Surely the model would have to be something like the WTO not the IRC?

    For better or worse ICANN deals with a system carrying billions of 'all currencies' over the world.

    But relocating to Switzerland would be soooooooooo cool!

  • Moving to Switzerland? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 03 2007, @02:57PM (#18593115) Homepage Journal
    So the organization might opt to relocate to Switzerland where such privileges are easier to attain.

    Yeah, I can see the US gov't just sitting by quietly while that happened.

    • Re:Moving to Switzerland? (Score:5, Funny)

      by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @03:04PM (#18593217)
      Yeah, I can just see Bush calling together a cabinet meeting and spouting forth a few classic zingers on how to "bomb" the internet.

      "We fight the internet over here so we don't have to fight it over there"
      "If the internet is not with us, its with the terrorists"

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by shaitand (626655)
        It'll just be another war on a vague concept. Added to the War on Terror, and the War on Drugs, we'll have the War on the Internet.
    • Yeah, I can see the US gov't just sitting by quietly while that happened.

      Maybe that's why they want to go to Switzerland. Because the US invading Switzerland might look bad.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rs79 (71822)
      "Yeah, I can see the US gov't just sitting by quietly while that happened."

      They absolutely will not let it happen. DARPA paid for development of this and it's been run under government contract forever - the USG will never let go of the addressing system.

      You want to make your own? Fine, go ahead, but the USG owns the legacy names and numbers.

      Which isn't bad really, there is congressional oversight over it. Compared to no oversight it's the lessor of two evils.

      Keep in mind they wanted to be a Swiss organizat
  • And I guess we're not to ask "why", right ? Whom will get custudy over ICANN after this operation ? Are we to believe that the ICANN board, we all know how reliable they are, will make the right choices for all of us ? Will it be the UN ? I trust them even less to make the right choice. I like where the internet has gotten under US law. Why would a change, as big a this, be necessary ?
    • You know how animals like deer and cattle innately understand when a natural disaster is coming and instinctively seek safer ground?

      It might be something like that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rs79 (71822)
        "You know how animals like deer and cattle innately understand when a natural disaster is coming and instinctively seek safer ground?

        It might be something like that."

        More like roaches scurrying when the light is turned on.

        That light of day can be a pesky thing - it makes all sorts of things visible.
    • I say they move it to China or Iran. After all, if they're good enough to sit on UN security councils and human right's councils, why not run the intarwebs, too?

    • DNSSEC keys (Score:5, Interesting)

      by John.P.Jones (601028) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @03:19PM (#18593529)
      This is all about the recent request for access to the DNSSEC root keys. As a firm proponent of DNSSEC I agree, In ACSAC 2005 I published a paper proposing the IKS (Internet Key Service) a distributed domain-name based certificate authority grounded in DNSSEC and the sole authority of ICANN to assign domains. A functionally deployed DNSSEC would allow us to bootstrap strong end-to-end cryptography. Allowing the US government to spoof DNS entries would seriously impair DNSSEC and greatly damage my work.
    • It's where it's going that scares me.

      The United States want TOTAL control of where you go, what you can do, etc. They're going to use 9/11 to get anything and everything it wants in terms of our liberties. And the fact of the matter is that it simply doesn't have the right to do that. Not only does it not have the right to be that intrusive on it's own citizens, it sure as HELL doesn't have that right to be that intrusive on citizens of other countries! "Hey, Canada won't accept our demands to make their own version of the DMCA? Cool, we'll do it for them!"

      The United States has justified everything they do lately with no more than two words: terrorism or paedophilia. Those are the heavy hitters that get people moving. Even if the subject at hand has nothing to do with either of those things, they shove their laws down the throats of their own citizens on those two principles, weather they like it or not, and if they can't have it become a law, then the US just does whatever it is anyway (see: domestic warrantless wiretapping, secret spying programme, the FBI abusing the Patriot Act, etc.). Now you want them to be able to do that with THE ENTIRE INTERNET?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by mi (197448)

            Internet is common a good of a billion people worldwide

            All thanks to America's benevolence, business sense, and good design. These people's usage of the Internet in no way diminishes America's right to do, what it pleases with it, though...

            is our privilege, not some kind of favor we are doing.

            Ha-ha!.. So, if one builds a playground for his kids, and allows other kids to come and play too (for their and his own kids' benefit), he loses the right to control that playground — while keeping "the privi

    • I like where the internet has gotten under US law. Why would a change, as big a this, be necessary ?

      Because, where it's going under US law is atrocious, appaling, broken, and unwelcome. The relgious right in the US can supress the creation of new TLDs for xxx because it's currently under US control.

      The rest of the world isn't really prepared to have the US be capable of arbitrarily re-writing the infrastructure that is the internet on their whim, or to suit their needs, or to be able to spoof any IP on the

  • Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <<Satanicpuppy> <at> <gmail.com>> on Tuesday April 03 2007, @02:59PM (#18593141) Journal
    Frankly, for one country to "control" ICANN, with what ICANN "controls" is foolish. Especially the States, with people who seem to think that the free exchange of ideas is their personal property, and that since we're the "good guys" we can screw with the free exchange of ideas, and it's okay.

    Mind you, I wouldn't trust any other country more. Independence from national issues is pretty much the only solution.

    • Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 03 2007, @03:13PM (#18593411) Homepage Journal

      Mind you, I wouldn't trust any other country more. Independence from national issues is pretty much the only solution.

      Given ICANN's checkered past, are you sure you would trust an independent ICANN?

      • I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to political pressure, at this point. Hopefully becoming independent will straighten them out.

        Otherwise, having them move once will already remove some of their current "whip hand" regarding policy...They'll be easier to replace when they're not being supported by the US.

        • Hopefully becoming independent will straighten them out.

          What? "I know he's a serial killer, but hopefully, releasing him on his OR will straighten him out." "I know Bush wipes his ass with the constitution, but hopefully if we just let him be he'll stop." "I know ICANN is pure evil, but perhaps if we just ignore it they'll start to do the right thing." What do these statements have in common? They're all fever dreams.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by drinkypoo (153816)

              When they're not in the US, they'll have to take things brought up by the whole "rest of world" more seriously.

              That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that they won't take things brought up by the whole "rest of world" or the US seriously, and will instead just do whatever gets them the most money.

    • Frankly, for one country to "control" ICANN, with what ICANN "controls" is foolish.

      Not really when consider that what ICANN "controls" is essentially owned by that country.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537)
      I feel like it's one of those situations where someone has to have some measure of control, yet whenever someone suggests a person or organization to control it, it always seems like a bad idea. Every body, whether individual, private, or governmental, will have an agenda that could damage the situation. It's really a problem of people. I don't trust people. They make too many bad decisions. But what's the alternative??

  • ICANN? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stratjakt (596332)
    ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

    They dish out IPs and run DNS.

    What exactly do they want immunity from?

    All corporations want to be "above the law". Plenty move offshore to accomplish this.

  • I have a better idea... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zappepcs (820751) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @03:10PM (#18593359) Journal
    Lets just get rid of, as in incinerate, the dept of homeland security and the problem, as such, will just go away. Then we can all get back to what needs to be done.

  • This, I can support (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @03:14PM (#18593413) Homepage
    Switzerland is the only country out there that I would trust. As a conservative Christian libertarian, I admire a country that has the cajones to actually tell a group like the EU to go f$%^ itself on pressure to change its tax laws [cato-at-liberty.org]. The Swiss also have a more limited government than we do in the US, and even if it is no longer as effective, the Swiss military model speaks to the traditionalist in me a lot better than what we are getting here. Why is that appropriate? Because our government has evolved away from its republican roots in many ways. I no longer trust it on just about anything. Let the Swiss handle it. Hell, they're the only ones who you can see doing the three things the Internet needs:
    • Run the technical management well.
    • Jealously guard it from the depredation of the UN.
    • Not provide any protection or assistance to police states that want to pervert it when people circumvent their efforts. The Swiss aren't perfect, but they don't have a reputation for publically attacking a country and then having that government torture mutual enemies *cough*extraordinary rendition*cough*Syria*cough*
    • Could be they don't want to be liable for all those screwed in the Registerfly.com debacle as they didn't do a thing to help the domain name owners (yes, I'm one of them).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LihTox (754597)
        what's with all the Christians not liking the UN?
        It's not a Christian thing, it's a conservative thing (the OP confesses to both leanings, as well as "libertarian" which is an even better explanation for the UN-aversion). I'm Christian and I support the UN (though realizing its flaws). Unfortunately, the loudest Christians these days are conservatives, so you end up with a shouting match between conservative Christians and secular liberals, and little sign that there can be anything else.

  • Its a Trap (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2007, @03:23PM (#18593597)
    They have no power beyond the power of the US government, because Verisign controls the actual servers and use to have ICANNs job before ICANN came along. So no they won't relocate to Switzerland and no they don't want immunity from US law, they want immunity from being sued by disgruntled domain name holders.

    Like the recent Registerfly domain registrar where they did nothing even as their domain names were lost until they were prodded into action by bad press.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kimba (12893)
      VeriSign never had "ICANNs job before ICANN came along". The IANA function was operated by the University of Southern California prior to the creation of ICANN in 1998. The operation of IANA dates back to 1972, and never in that time has it been operated by VeriSign.
  • ..at ICANN, and the idiots in the Bush administration, to protect the future of the Internet. That makes me feel much better.

    • Re:terrible news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mjmartin_uk (776702) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @03:13PM (#18593405)

      Utter crap! First up, the US is no different from Switzerland in freedom of expression laws, secondly ICANN never said they wanted to be under UN control, therefore they are under no obligation to bow to pressure from any country which would be a better position than they are in now (being under pressure from Congress - who have a grrreat track record in legislating on Technology law - thing DMCA)

      • First up, the US is no different from Switzerland in freedom of expression laws ...except in the US you don't go to jail for denying the holocaust, but okay.

        ICANN never said they wanted to be under UN control

        Under whose control they want to be is irrelevant. They are US government contractors. They don't own what they operate.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by shaitand (626655)
      'If ICANN leaves the protection of the USA, ICANN will have to start recognizing all the repressive and bizaree anti-free expression laws of other countries'

      The President is moving (via the Dept of Homeland Security) to eliminate those previous freedoms enjoyed by America. The Bush idea of free speech is far worse than the international one. Also you make it sound as if ICANN would be reduced to the restrictions of the worst countries when in reality ICANN wouldn't have to listen to any of them.

      Switzerland

    • Re:terrible news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kaffiene (38781) on Tuesday April 03 2007, @04:57PM (#18595477)
      The US ranks behind several other countries in terms of freedom of the press and corruption, but don't let that interrupt your nationalistic delusions of superiority.

      • Every country which has ratified the UN declaration on human rights (and followed through on their obligations, for example the UK) has equal free-speech to the USA. We just have different bugbears to you (in Europe, this is mainly we-hate-Nazis instead of we-hate-Terrorists).

        I know this is touching on a political nerve, so I'm hesitant to say much, but regardless of those who ratified the UN declaration, the USA has a better track record than others.

        Let's start with looking at the declaration [un.org]. I belie

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.