ICANN chairman loses mind over his domain-name privacy shakeup The chairman of ICANN has been recorded ranting about domain-name privacy: the DNS overlord wants owners of "commercial" websites to reveal their personal details in the WHOIS database. Steve Crocker appeared on a webinar last week with a working group looking at how to improve ICANN's accountability before it is handed …
(from the first "Blackadder" series, with almost as much treachery and stupidity as an ICANN meeting)
Messenger: My Lord, news...
King: What?
Messenger: Lord Wessex is dead.
King: This news is not so good.
Messenger: Pardon, My Lord?
King: I like it not. Bring me some other news.
Messenger: Pardon, My Lord?
King: I LIKE NOT THIS NEWS! BRING ME SOME OTHER
NEWS!!!
Messenger: Yes, My Lord!
(Messenger leaves; King tosses things around
angrily;
Messenger re-enters )
Messenger: My Lord, news...
King: What?
Messenger: Lord Wessex is not dead.
King: Ah, good news!
Let there be joy and celebration; let jubilation reign!
And all those who have faith in ICANN's ability to properly oversee IANA put their hands up......
Between various recent issues, including a compromise of their systems, ICANN seem to be a bit beseiged at the moment. It does seem, largely, a mess of their own making though.
I wasn't hot on the idea of passing (some/all) control over to the UN, or even to the IETF, but ICANN are doing a fantastic job of making that a better option
But that was back in the 80's (Neg 20's for you oughty people).
A lot of greybeards who think they invented the tubes, enjoy their honorariums (or salaries), and don't understand that the world may have progressed a little bit.
In the fine ole USofA, NetSol was about the only registrar and it cost several 10's of dollars to secure a domain name. And it took a week or two or more. And they didn't even have a way to do it online in the beginning.
Personally, I think we should let our totally human-free bots decide what to do with our stupid IANA and DNS. They can just let us know what is allowable, minute by minute.
Oh, wait - I need to go. My phone is buzzing.
Am I the only one who thinks that ICANN should be disbanded and the US government should try again at creating an organization to run the Internet functions? It wouldn't kill anyone for the US to remain in control for a few more years while a competent company is set up. ICANN just seems too screwed up to fix.
Unless the solution that appears is even worse. And to top it all off, if anything other than ICANN were to take over, the end result may be a fracturing of the Internet standards. After all, if the US loses control of the Internet standards, might there be a mad power grab in the vacuum left in its wake?
I was just preparing to suggest the same thing. Charles 9 raises some pointed questions, but, is there really much evidence that we could do worse than ICANN without actively working at it? Certainly ISTM that the U.S. taking its ball back and trying again would be an improvement, even with the Congress in gridlock. Could the IETF actually take over? Maybe Paris H.?
"...is there really much evidence that we could do worse than ICANN without actively working at it?"
Ever heard the phrase, "the worst thing there is with the exception of everything else"? There's a distinct chance, given the bureaucratically-charged power-grabbing atmosphere, that this is the least worst possibility on offer. Anything truly beneficial will never be backed, and anything that will be backed will be corrupt as Hell. So what's your choice?
Actually Paris H. isn't such a bad idea. The role requires zero technical competence, since (as noted nearby) the rules could be automated. All that is required is someone to arbitrate on debatable issues. Paris H. has plenty of her own cash and (if certain videos are to be believed) would be quite hard to blackmail or bully. She doesn't give a shit about the various people who would want to influence her decisions.
Can you give one instance where the government actually did something better than what was previously done? Government != competence. If they tried, all the lobbyists would have a field day and the elected officials would fiddle with the legislation/requirements to fulfill their own needs/views. IOW, fat chance of any good coming from that.
Fire and police departments. I recall once in the 19th century, when they were private companies, many became protection rackets (as in "shame what might happen to your house, hmm hmm?"). And if one toll road is bad enough, think what would happen if all roads had to be privately funded. The Internet is considered a social asset: something everyone uses even if indirectly (like roads and rails; where do your supermarket goods come from). If privately held, they'll start holding chokepoints for ransom.
"I recall once in the 19th century, when they were private companies, many became protection rackets "
Like the City of London Police currently is and like what happens in a number of places around the world with real "free market" policies (as in, no govt intervention into anything)
This is the ultimate end-game of libertarianism. It's been tried before and the results are why most countries have state controls over how far things can be taken.
Markets are civilization and prosperity. That prosperity gives rise to complacency and growth of government which in turn leads to decivilization and violence. The US is a good example of a once free country which has now grown into an empire as the US government wreaks havok all over the world destabilizing everything in order to consume it or divi it up to cronies. Governments are the last people we need running anything even connected to the exchange of free ideas. They are the antithesis of freedom.
And now I think my flippant earlier reply needs to be reconsidered.
Is there anything that ICANN does that can't be done by a computer?
Can the computer be programmed to follow some simple rules that mimic the ICANN processes? Can the software that the computer uses be perfectly open and verifiable at any time by any interested party?
Isn't it time we stop giving responsibility to humans that have naturally human foibles?
There would still need to be an oversight committee (or community) but if all of the rules were visible and needed to be agreed upon (xx%) then we actually have a record of changes and reasons for those changes.
"Can the computer be programmed to follow some simple rules that mimic the ICANN processes? Can the software that the computer uses be perfectly open and verifiable at any time by any interested party?
Isn't it time we stop giving responsibility to humans that have naturally human foibles?"
Only one problem. Computers are programmed by humans (if not, you have a RotM scenario). They can sneak stuff behind the scenes and hide the secret code from prying eyes. Think the rogue compiler or rogue hardware scenario.
Because he thinks that ICANN is not being criticized if he doesn't allow it ?
Or does he think that not allowing official criticism means that there is none ?
Either way, that guy is a nutjob. Certified. It would seem that ICANN somehow attracts that kind to the exclusion of anyone competent. I wonder if he thinks that behaving that way to government officials is not going to have any effect whatsoever on his career.
"I wonder if he thinks that behaving that way to government officials is not going to have any effect whatsoever on his career."
Probably not since he'll just tip to Congress, "If we lose control of the Internet, it'll likely fall into Russian or Chinese hands, and then...game over." And since many in Congress are old enough to still remember the Cold War...
I've known Steve for about 20 years and he is anything but a nutjob.
Perhaps. That doesn't change the fact that ICANN continues to have a miserable record for transparency, accountability, or changing things that are patently broken.
I think ICANN is simply a toxic organization. When Cerf was running it, it did all sorts of things that were highly questionable, if not reprehensible. If Vint Cerf didn't run ICANN in an acceptable fashion, who will? Maybe the chair doesn't have enough power, or maybe it's simply a position that makes it too difficult to resist a tyrannical stance.
WHOIS policy has _always_ required the use of real names and provision of a "legal address for service" (which means, "where court papers can be served by a bailiff") and that has been on the basis that a domain owner is responsible for what appears on their domain and must be legally accountable for it.
Over recent years this has been relaxed to only those domains used for commercial purposes but in general registrars themselves have masked personal data for non-commercial domains (This is widely abused. I filed more than 100 complaints with Nominet in the last 5 years over companies masking their registration data and every single complaint was upheld - with the masking being removed. In some cases domain owners immediately changed their registrations to an overseas post-box.)
The most common commercial use of proxy registration is for criminal enterprises. The use of proxies is legally questionable and this has been debated ever since Godaddy created the first one.
I'll ask one simple question for the readers: WHY would a _commercial_ domain want to anonymise its domain name holders and address for legal service? This can as easily be the company office (usually an accountants office) as a home address.
Proxies (and the widespread use of Mailboxes Etc dropboxes) are a false security anyway. Once hit with legal papers the proxies will roll over and play dead without any further consultation with the domain holder and MBE franchisees will do the same, as the alternative is that that THEY are deemed to be the ones in the legal firing line - and shielding fraud/kiddyporn/drugs/criminal activity means they can be arrested on the spot as accompliances or named in subsequent civil proceedings (this has happened and they've been nailed to the wall every time).
I disagree with ICANN over a lot of things and feel that much of what they've been up to is outright criminal, but anonymity for business operations is not allowed in any other field. There is no reason to allow it on the Internet.
"Proxies (and the widespread use of Mailboxes Etc dropboxes) are a false security anyway. Once hit with legal papers the proxies will roll over and play dead without any further consultation with the domain holder and MBE franchisees will do the same, as the alternative is that that THEY are deemed to be the ones in the legal firing line - and shielding fraud/kiddyporn/drugs/criminal activity means they can be arrested on the spot as accompliances or named in subsequent civil proceedings (this has happened and they've been nailed to the wall every time)."
But what if the proxies are located in a sovereign country that doesn't agree with the suing company? Isn't that one reason for the proxies: to take advantage of more lenient laws in another country?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
