|
ICANN's Time Is Up, According To John Gilmore
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 142 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
The EFF (Score:1, Offtopic)
by ObviousGuy (ObviousGuy@hotmail.com) on Tuesday July 02, @12:54AM (#3805633)
(User #578567 Info | Last Journal: Monday June 10, @01:15AM)
|
|
After that last EFF Fair Use Game [eff.org] debacle, I have lost complete faith in those clowns.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- Re:The EFF by Niadh (Score:1) Tuesday July 02, @01:19AM
- Re:The EFF by interiot (Score:2) Tuesday July 02, @01:48AM
- Re:The EFF by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday July 02, @01:58AM
- Re:The EFF by ObviousGuy (Score:1) Tuesday July 02, @03:55AM
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
John Gilmore is one of those net greats... (Score:4, Interesting)
by Sheetrock on Tuesday July 02, @01:00AM (#3805652)
(User #152993 Info | http://slashdot.org/...y&uid=442574&id=4236 | Last Journal: Thursday August 23, @06:44PM)
|
|
I'd put him up there with Jon Postel (unfortunately deceased) as being one of those who really 'gets it' as far as the Internet goes. He's originated or been part of most great things (including the EFF, the alt.* newsgroups, and Cypherpunks). I don't agree with all of his concepts, such as spam being free speech, but he's been funding a project to permit intelligent spam filtering at the mailbox by comparing incoming mail's content to other mail you've said you liked/disliked.
He's right on the money with ICANN, too, although I'm sure I don't need to go into a spiel as to why. But if you aren't familiar with him, you might want to take a look at his other work if you want to see some cutting-edge concepts that are in need of an innovator.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
discreditting (Score:4, Insightful)
by larry bagina on Tuesday July 02, @01:02AM (#3805657)
(User #561269 Info)
|
|
And he published it in an attempt to discredit the lawsuit, by claiming that the people behind the suit were just trying to tear down ICANN.
There's a saying that's popular with defense laywers ... "When you don't have the law, you argue the facts. When you don't have the facts, you argue the law. And when you don't have either, you persecute the prosecutor"
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Read it and weep (Score:5, Insightful)
by mumkin (sloshdit@@@casual-living...com) on Tuesday July 02, @01:17AM (#3805695)
(User #28230 Info | Last Journal: Tuesday June 25, @04:51PM)
|
|
I shouldn't have to say this, but those of you reading comments without reading the article [salon.com] really should do yourselves a favor and follow that link. The fact that ICANN won't let its own director have access to the books is an incredible testament to both its star-chamber mentality and the incredibly fucked-up way in which it is constituted in the first place. In addition, Gilmore has some particularly spooky things to say about the history of Network Solutions, and what he estimates the *real cost* of maintaining a domain's registration to be (less than 1 cent/year).
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
About Time (Score:1)
by jdun on Tuesday July 02, @01:28AM (#3805742)
(User #310373 Info)
|
|
It is about time they go. They made a big mess that will take years to fix.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Actually, Karl can't see the books.... (Score:4, Informative)
by CatHerder on Tuesday July 02, @01:32AM (#3805748)
(User #20831 Info)
|
|
Just a minor correction. It's not Gilmore who can't see the books that's the issue, rather that Karl Auerbach (the NA elected representative) can't see the books. Check out Karl's saga at http://www.cavebear.com .
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Gilmore's letter to ICANN director Cerf (Score:5, Interesting)
by q[alex] on Tuesday July 02, @01:42AM (#3805768)
(User #32151 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
Damn... Every time I run into something that John Gilmore has done I get this shivery feeling down the back of my neck. Here's a guy who has just got it all figured out, way ahead of the rest of us... or at least way ahead of me.
Err, but yeah. The reason I'm posting is because anyone who hasn't read Gilmore's letter to Vint Cerf really should... it's intelligent, funny and scathing. It's at http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=763 [icannwatch.org] and it's brilliant.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Brains (Score:1)
by Broadcatch (fen at openprivacy dot org) on Tuesday July 02, @01:52AM (#3805789)
(User #100226 Info | http://www.fen.net/)
|
|
Karl and John both have brains - and use them!
I wish we could get a president with brains...
BTW: Join the EFF [eff.org]!
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
P2P DNS, can it be done? (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02, @02:00AM (#3805812)
|
I CAN, U CAN, we all CAN get rid of ICANN!
We need a P2P version of DNS. Of course it would be much worse in terms of performance but it's harder to buy thousands of people than it is to buy a dozen.
Any ideas?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
This ICANN business (Score:1)
by Locke!Erasmus on Tuesday July 02, @02:35AM (#3805880)
(User #588304 Info)
|
|
Sometimes I think I should have picked out the Demosthenes!Tecumseh as a slashdot handle.
But anyway...on to this ICANN stuff.
If ICANN is breaking the law by withholding information from a board member, then they are breaking the law plain and simple. It seems as though this is a fairly obvious case to me.
Even if ICANN isn't doing something illicit with their income, the practices that are described in the Salon article and in Gilmore's original email to Vint Cerf are despicable.
In regards to whether they have their hands in the cookie har, I have this thought...a quote from Independence day sort of..."Does anyone really believe a hammer costs 50 dollars?"
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Huh? (Score:1)
by Warmth Is Life on Tuesday July 02, @02:38AM (#3805888)
(User #569686 Info)
|
|
We have rights?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
ICANN changes its name (Score:2, Funny)
by Raul654 on Tuesday July 02, @02:46AM (#3805909)
(User #453029 Info)
|
As was said in a previous slashdot comment [slashdot.org],
ICANN will now be known as UCANT
(Universal Controller of All Network Traffic)
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Corporate Governance Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
by Slashamatic on Tuesday July 02, @02:46AM (#3805910)
(User #553801 Info)
|
|
One of the things that is being kicked around with Enron/Worldcom/Xerox is that the board jointly and severally carries the responsibility for correct corporate governance. Well this for the "for-profit" companies. This means that the board is entitled to make enquires as to whether information being presented to them for approval (such as the balance sheet) is correct. What about non-profits? This question was posed before, but nobody seems to know about the specifics of California non-profits.
Actually, it sounds very similar to the shenanigans at FIFA where the CFO went up against the CEO on the basis of some very dodgy payments and accounting practices that he had authorised. The CFO was forced to resign, alledgedly through the use of bought influence (In FIFA, Tonga has the same number of votes as Germany).
Lets just forget that it is the Internet and just look at other organisations involved in coordinating things internationally. I mentioned FIFA, we also know about the Olympics committee. Other organisations closer to home, such as CCITT tend to be bureaucratic and inefficient but not particularly corrupt.
Is it possible to have a minimalist organisation that is cheap, efficient and honest that can manage something like the Internet?
ICANN't, Can you?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Benevolent Dictatorship (Score:5, Informative)
by nfras on Tuesday July 02, @02:55AM (#3805925)
(User #313241 Info)
|
In Australia we used to have the benevolent dictatorship of Robert Elz. He was the instigator of the .au domain until he was thrown out by the ICANN lap dog that is auDA. There was a huge amount of negative press about his 'unnaccountability' and the 'arrogant' way he dealt with people. There were press stories that if he refused to give up the name then they would have to force him via the courts. Throughout this Robert kept a dignified silence. When he released the name to auDA ICANN released this statement
"Whereas Robert Elz has devoted over 15 years of selfless and dedicated service to the global Internet community as the registry founder and operator of .au.
Resolved that the ICANN Board on behalf of the global Internet community extends its deepest thanks to Robert Elz for his profound
countributions to the evolution and stable performance of the global Internet."
We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
So we don't hate john gilmore today? (Score:1, Troll)
by autopr0n on Tuesday July 02, @03:22AM (#3805977)
(User #534291 Info | http://autopr0n.com/)
|
|
The evil bastard who runs an open gateway?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Hm (Score:4, Funny)
by DNS-and-BIND on Tuesday July 02, @03:25AM (#3805986)
(User #461968 Info | http://trollaxor.com/story/2002/4/23/02526/4181)
|
|
ICANN's financials are right in the open for anyone to see on their website.
http://www.icann.org/financials/ [icann.org].
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
i've said it once and I will say it again (Score:1)
by kormoc (rob.smith21@[ ]izon.net ['ver' in gap]) on Tuesday July 02, @04:01AM (#3806053)
(User #122955 Info | http://www.mountjoysportsmen.org/)
|
so fuck them, use something like Opennic
http://www.opennic.unrated.net/
If more and more people use this, then icann can't live, can it?
I know people feel that it can't work if people have to work to get it to work, but if we get enough of a underground following, people will come
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Vint Cerf's statement prefixing Gilmore's email (Score:4, Informative)
by tlambert on Tuesday July 02, @04:41AM (#3806120)
(User #566799 Info)
|
FWIW, here is a transcription of the statement that included the publication of Gilmore's e-mail to Vint Cerf, transcribed from the PDF image from the link linked to by the article.
It looked to me that Vint was doing everything he could legally do, to do the right thing.
-----------
I, Vinton Cerf, declare:
1. I am the Chairman of the Board of Defendant Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"). I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and am competent to testify to those matters.
2. Mr. Auerbach has never, pursuant to Section 6 of the ICANN Inspection Procedures, requested full ICANN Board review of the Audit Committee's determination regarding the arrangements for his inspection of the corporate records.
3. On March 18, 1002, I received an e-mail from John Gilmore, in which he asserts that he "contributed significant funding for" this lawsuit. Mr. Gilmore is one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the organization providing representation for Mr. Auerbach in this lawsuit. A true and correct copy of the e-mail from Mr. Gilmore is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
This declaration was signed on April 16, 2002 at Washington, D.C.
[ Signature ]
Vinton Cerf
[ Attached e-mail ]
-----------
I seems to me that Vint is pointing out that the decision was made by a subset of the Board of Directors, the "Audit Committee". It also points out that there is recourse available to Auerbach that he has not exercised, prior to filing the lawsuit.
It also seems (to me) that the statement numbered "3" was minimal, in not drawing any conclusions based on it. Thus the "terse statement" condemnation of Vint Cerf's statement in the article isn't really a very strong condemnation; it looks to me that, by leaving out the social context, Vint allows for interpretation favorable to the case.
This interpretation is bolstered by the fact that the statement numbered "2" seems to go out of its way to point out a way around the "Audit Committee", as if it were a tightly controlled minority clique of the full board, and in pointing out seems to imply success might be achievable via that route.
At the very least, Auerbach needs to try to avail himself of that route, so that if it fails, he can counter a motion for dismissal (i.e. it's arguable that this case is only a matter for the courts if all other reasonable recourse has been exhausted, which it has not been, according to this statement).
I have a very hard time believing that Vint would not have been as explicit or terse as this, were it not for the legal liability issue as the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Defendant.
-- Terry
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- Irrelevant by kieran (Score:2) Tuesday July 02, @12:17PM
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Vint Cerf's view: live on Thursday 2:30pm CET (Score:5, Informative)
by scrm (scrm@sca n d a l .org) on Tuesday July 02, @05:38AM (#3806238)
(User #185355 Info | http://www.scandal.org/)
|
|
Want to hear the other side of the ICANN story? Vint Cerf will be attending a round-table conference [www.isoc.lu] in my home country of Luxembourg on Thursday July 4 at 2:30pm CET (time zone convertor here [timezoneconverter.com]) (it's just down the road from me, but I won't be able to attend to put questions to him, gotta work!). A live webcast will be available here [webcast.tsl.lu], so tune in then. Check out the conference info page for some good links and background on Cerf.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Time is definitely up. (Score:3, Interesting)
by chris_sawtell (csawtell ( at ) paradise.co.nz) on Tuesday July 02, @06:10AM (#3806293)
(User #10326 Info)
|
The domain names debacle needs sorting out - urgently. It is completely wrong
that the administration of such an important trans-national medium as the
Internet is in effect in the uncontrolled hands of just so few people.
The 'Net is something of such international importance that no national
interest, commercial or otherwise, should have any control whatsoever other
than the delegated administration of the names registries of the
individual countries.
This, in effect, means that the only organisation which should be able to change
either the underlying protocols or the top level domains is the United Nations
My own feeling about top level domains other than the country ones is that they
should be simply removed. Absolutely every legal entity has a home in some
country somewhere or other. No more .com, .edu, .mil, .net, or .org. The names
which belong to organisations based in the United States should be using the
.us top level domain. There is, I suppose, the argument that there are a few,
very few, genuinely international organisations which should have domain names
not tied to any particular country. The International Red Cross is the kind of
organisation which comes to mind as the type which has the moral right to the
irc.org domain name. Similarly there is a genuine need for a single
supra-national domain for the use of the Internet infrastructure as a whole. I
thought that .net was intended for this, but it seems to have been polluted in
the interests of commercial gain.
The pollution of the .org space by hobby software projects is another case in
point. While these are certainly very useful and worthwhile projects, and the
groups of individuals are frequently located all around the globe, I really
don't think they have much in the way of absolute moral right to be in the .org
namespace. Perhaps they should have a fully international top level domain name
of their own. Is it .gnu or .oss?
The administration of domains which have been given away or sold by their
countries should revert to the UN until the countries in question can do it for
themselves. The very idea that the whole address space for an entire country
can be traded away for the personal profit of an idividual is, in this author's
opinion anyway, just plain wrong, and should be corrected as soon as possible.
Similarly, while the enhancement of Internet security is sorely needed at the
moment, no particular commercial interest should ever be able to hijack the
whole exercise by introducing secret protocols protected by draconian
intellectual property laws. The overall effect of this will be to give the
particular patent holder the right to tax every Internet user, or indeed every
single message.
Is this really what we want?
--
Christopher Sawtell
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Just Say No -- use OpenNIC. (Score:2)
by Dr. Zowie (slashdot@defo[ ]t.org ['res' in gap]) on Tuesday July 02, @11:33AM (#3807604)
(User #109983 Info)
|
It's been said before, it'll probably be
said again. If you don't like ICANN, just point
your DNS client to OpenNIC instead. Democratic
name service the way it should be.
It's easy to find and easy to use -- from ICANN-space, try http://www.opennic.net
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Hang on a second (Score:2)
by Rogerborg on Tuesday July 02, @11:51AM (#3807729)
(User #306625 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
|
This is the same John Gilmore who we savaged for running an open mail relay [slashdot.org] and not backing down or compromising in any meaningful way.
Now, I fully support him in this endeavour, but let's not just slip into maudlin hero worship. Like an old fashioned preacher, Gilmore has gone from being representative, through conservative, until he's now an extreme fundamentalist, not because he's changed, but because the world has. Gilmore refuses to compromise his ideals one iota. Beyond a certain point that ceases to be admirable and just becomes stubborn and unrealistic.
Again: I agree with the issue, I think he's fighting the good fight, but I just have some reservations about his judgement. I've had the feeling for some time now that John Gilmore is living in the past, and he just won't let go.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Do you know what will happen? (Score:2)
by TheAwfulTruth on Tuesday July 02, @01:30PM (#3808494)
(User #325623 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
When ICANN goes? The COURTS take over. Large corps with plans for domain name grabs are increasingly abandoning ICANN for resolutions because ICANN frequently sides with the current holders. When using the courts however. It's pretty easy to throw money at the problem and get your way. (It's ironic that this is being leveled at ICANN when it's already a known and oftenused practive in the legal system)ICANN at least provided a small hope that the name you registered would reamin yours... (I provide the resent "Easy* vs "Easi*" fiasco as proof)
The only part I agree with (And it's already been talked about) is that the US Gov. should take back control of ICANN (Or a global governmental body). For the reasons listed in the article. But even as it is, there had better be a MUCH BETTER plan in place before even talking about getting rid of ICANN. The alternative will be the ususal situation of being far worse off after the wolves have had their fun.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Quote: "firmly in the pocket of special interests" (Score:2)
by Garry Anderson on Tuesday July 02, @07:32PM (#3811393)
(User #194949 Info | http://www.skilful.com/)
|
IMO - I believe we know most of it:
"ICANN is secretive, slow, inefficient and, worst of all, firmly in the pocket of special interests."
From ICANN Forum [icann.org]: Vint has become crooked and does not answer emails any more.
ICANN wants more money to further increase their corrupt powers and for their Lawyers; JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE.
Karl should be allowed to see the books, with gagging preconditions. ICANN are supposed to be OPEN, for flips sake.
ICANN use spin to say critics are just trying to tear down ICANN.
Personally, I have always said ICANN (or similar) is necessary - as John Gilmore says, "No, we're trying to make ICANN accountable to its public for its actions."
Those responsible should pay with time in jail for any illegal acts. Not fines like corrupt fat cats pay - money that will come from us - the consumer.
We learn some new things, like it cost less than 25 cents per year per name to run domain name registry - are we all being screwed or what?
It should cost should cost the huge NSI less than 1 cent per year to do the work. Screwing everybody harder still - car dealers would love that percentage markup.
Mr Mueller, Mr Gilmore and myself all agree on about trademark abuse of power by the greedy corporations:
Milton Mueller's account of Internet governance, portrays ICANN primarily as a tool for trademark protection.
John Gilmore says "I do agree that ICANN and domain name policy has been perverted from the start by the machinations of trademark interests. Actual trademark law gives zero power to cancel or seize domain names, prevent their issuance, etc. Actual trademark law lets hundreds of people use the same name, both in different jurisdictions, and for different kinds of trades (e.g., computers vs. soap vs. ships). Trademark owners only have power over others when the others misrepresent themselves as the trademark owner."
The authorities IGNORE National and Classification boundaries - this is unlawful - ask any (honest) Lawyer. These authorities know the solution to these trademark/domain problems - it is easier than using the telephone.
My fellow posters - these corrupt people in the US DoC, UN WIPO and ICANN are aiding and abetting this abuse. They prevent all registered trademarks from using their mark - an illegal act.
The Truth will win in the end - and the corrupt will be named and shamed.
Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization [wipo.org.uk] - Not associated with United Nations WIPO.org !
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Polka! Vote for it!!! (Score:1)
by ObviousGuy (ObviousGuy@hotmail.com) on Tuesday July 02, @12:58AM (#3805643)
(User #578567 Info | Last Journal: Monday June 10, @01:15AM)
|
|
Goatse is 404. What's up with that?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re:The EFF Sucks (Score:3, Troll)
by josh crawley on Tuesday July 02, @01:03AM (#3805661)
(User #537561 Info)
|
---"These people are the Internet equivalent of the Nike-store-smashing-anarchist juveniles. They need to grow up and realize how the real world works."
I wouldn't say that the first sentance is true, but the second certainly is. EFF is a so-called polictical activism committee. Well, they whine for money for court cases that usually are doomed to the very start. Why dont they usually win? Well, they don't give enough money to overturn the laws as they're made. All other PAC's do heavy lobbying and giving of heavy amounts of money to opposing officals.
The EFF is a reactionary orginazation. These do NOT work. Instead, I'd rather put money (from anon sources) into a pool requesting program X to be written. So what if the program is deemed "Illegal". If it's out there (source and all), no company/government/grassroots campaign can take it away. For my example, look at the 200K being offered to hack the X-Box for Linux. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re:ATTENTION ALL NEGROES (Score:1)
by severnaGates (wcshaferNO@SPAMcablespeed.com) on Tuesday July 02, @01:46AM (#3805778)
(User #586768 Info)
|
|
I shouldnt reply to this obvious flame bait
But it's amazing how ignorant and rasict people can be.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Re:ICANN (Score:1)
by alphaCoward on Tuesday July 02, @01:56AM (#3805802)
(User #563425 Info)
|
|
I'm sure the government would like to be given control again. They could remove www.taliban.com from the DNS and hey, no more threat of terrorists. But maybe thats not what they want....
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:ICANN (Score:3, Interesting)
by danro on Tuesday July 02, @06:40AM (#3806361)
(User #544913 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
So who is going to handle that then? The government?
I wasn't aware there were a world government...
oh, you mean the US should yet again directly control the root servers.
Well, if that is what happens, I won't be surprised.
The DNS system is the worst thing that has ever happened to the web.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- Re:ICANN by farfolen (Score:1) Tuesday July 02, @07:56AM
- Re:ICANN by Turing Machine (Score:1) Tuesday July 02, @02:16PM
- 2 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
Re:Be wary of all international orgs. (Score:4, Informative)
by danro on Tuesday July 02, @07:05AM (#3806411)
(User #544913 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
I would like to hear you ellaborate a bit about The Hague.
you might clue me in a bit about what the hell Mr Bush is whining about.
Noone else seems to have a problem, but to the US this is the biggest deal in the world, apperantly.
On the other hand the Bush administration (IMHO) tries to weasel it's way out of any and all international agreements.
What is his problem with agreeing to common rules and sticking to them?
All the world isn't texas you know, George.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
| 16 replies
beneath your current threshold. |
ICANN's Time Is Up, According To John Gilmore
