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.
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.
I thought "War on...." was a code phrase meaning "an unsolvable problem we will waste billions of dollars trying unsuccessfully to solve using the same failing methods over and over again." Didn't it start with the war on poverty?
I thought "War on...." was a code phrase meaning "an unsolvable problem we will waste billions of dollars trying unsuccessfully to solve using the same failing methods over and over again." Didn't it start with the war on poverty?
If by "waste," you mean "transfer to our campaign donors," then yes, that's exactly what it means.
Well hell, after we ousted them Nazi's then drove the USSR into the ground economically, we needed a new enemy. What better foe than one that absolutely, cannot be defeated?
"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.
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 ?
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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??
Seriously, what is a "private international organization," why is it above the national laws of the country it is in, and most importantly, how do I become one?
How about the spamhaus.org incident [icann.org]? Should a single country's laws be allowed to lock-out a foreign company's ability to be present on the Internet?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
"please name one example of a law that has changed to this effect."
Laws do not need to change in order for freedom of expression to be reduced or even wiped out. The political mood in the last 5 years has turned downright repressive; people in power will not hesitate to use their resources against you in case you dare express opinions against the current US political agenda.
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
Maybe they could bid for Sealand (Score:3, Funny)
yeah (Score:5, Funny)
So then it's more like ICANN'T, when you really think about it.
Immunity (Score:4, Funny)
Jack, this organization tried to KILL me!
More true to life. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Red Cross???? (Score:3, Informative)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Moving to Switzerland? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I can see the US gov't just sitting by quietly while that happened.
Re:Moving to Switzerland? (Score:5, Funny)
"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"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Moving to Switzerland? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
All in how you look at it... (Score:3, Insightful)
If by "waste," you mean "transfer to our campaign donors," then yes, that's exactly what it means.
Re:Moving to Switzerland? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe that's why they want to go to Switzerland. Because the US invading Switzerland might look bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They might wear a little too much make-up at times, but that hardly makes them a "rouge nation".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Another organization that wants to be above thelaw (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It might be something like that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Another organization that wants to be above the (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Another organization that wants to be above the (Score:2)
DNSSEC keys (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Another organization that wants to be above the (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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...
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
Re:Another organization that wants to be above the (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
Given ICANN's checkered past, are you sure you would trust an independent ICANN?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Not really when consider that what ICANN "controls" is essentially owned by that country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ICANN? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:ICANN? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a better idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
This, I can support (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
In other words, our choice is between the idiots.. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:terrible news (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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:4, Informative)
"please name one example of a law that has changed to this effect."
Laws do not need to change in order for freedom of expression to be reduced or even wiped out. The political mood in the last 5 years has turned downright repressive; people in power will not hesitate to use their resources against you in case you dare express opinions against the current US political agenda.
Man arrested for wearing an antiwar shirt [cnn.com]
Man arrested after addressing Cheyney on the Iraq war [exuberance.com]
Man arrested for handling toilet paper with Bush Face on it [indymedia.org]
Man arrested for dressing up and waving a fake gun [libertylounge.net]
Killed GI's mother arrested [cbsnews.com]
Parent
Re:terrible news (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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