5 ms·
US ready to 'hand over' the internet's naming system
- massysett 10y agoNowhere does this article say ICANN is being handed over to the UN.
- rm999 10y ago>US to hand over ICANN to UN ICANN is an independent organization, and DNS will not be controlled by the UN. This is actually a fear-mongering narrative being repeated by American conservative news sites. Obama's administration promised control of DNS would not be handed over to the UN, which would make it susceptible to political pressure from e.g. authoritarian governments. The plan is for ICANN, a non-profit company located in California, to work with the private sector to steward DNS.
- helthanatos 10y agoConservative news sources? Those sadly don't exist. This misattribution of ICANN is incredible though.
- hellogoodbyeeee 10y agoWhat is Fox news? The wall Street journal?
- zkhalique 10y agoThey're leftie socialist rags compared to breitbart and nationalreview
- helthanatos 10y agoThey aren't very right, yet people accuse them of it without reading anything.
- hellogoodbyeeee 10y agoI'm sorry, if you don't think fox news has a strong right bias, then your perception of conservative is skewed way to the right and you have lost touch with what a moderate political opinion is in our country
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- marcoperaza 10y agoLegal control of ICANN will be ceded to a board that is ultimately chosen by the UN. Given that the US is pretty much the only country with anything approaching absolutist free speech protections, this is very concerning. Majorities in the UN support banning the "defamation of religion" and other things considered to be hate speech. What you're saying is directly contrary to the facts. Given that you're directly contradicting the facts presented in the BBC article, you should provide evidence.
- marcoperaza 10y agoI'm mistaken that it's being directly handed over to UN control, but the government advisory panel does have some power and there is no limits on what ICANN itself now decides to do. They are now free to reorganize themselves however they see fit. In order to get around antitrust law, they would have to put themselves under some kind of governmental control, such as by joining the UN. I don't see any good reason to risk anything. US control was working perfectly fine.
- rtpg 10y agoHonestly, I much prefer the US having control of DNS over pretty much any governmental body. Pretty much every other government has a pretty strong history of wanting to wipe things from the internet without any judicial proceedings. Though it seems like it's more the US giving more power to ICANN
- cm3 10y agoGiven the exploiting and abuse of the unprotected internet protocols by private and state actors, it's likely that in 10 years we won't rely on one or two central databases controlled by benevolent managers anymore. It will be spread and you'll get to pick what neighborhoods you'd like to visit.
- runesoerensen 10y agoA moderator or the submitter should update the grossly editorialized and misleading title of this submission.
- zkhalique 10y agoDoes this mean that ICE won't be able to do takedowns of domains as easily anymore?
- UnoriginalGuy 10y agoThe title of this definitely needs to be changed back to the original, not only is it factually wrong, but it tries to paint the issue with a specific narrative/brush. Currently reads: > US to hand over ICANN to UN Original: > US ready to 'hand over' the internet's naming system
- donpdonp 10y agoThe hackernews headline really needs to not say "the UN". All the article says is the ICANN, based in Los Angeles, is no longer under the Department of Commerce, but instead will be an "organisation that answers to multiple stakeholders". It does not go into detail as to who those stakeholders are. It literally has nothing to do with the United Nations except for a paragraph that said the UN tried to take control in 2012 and the US (and others) shot down that idea.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nnain 10y agoThe orginal title is, "US ready to hand over the internet's naming system" . The edited title here on HN, "US to hand over ICANN to UN" is wrong. ICANN is already independent and sending ICANN to UN, if it happens, might only slow down their decision making (cause there will be too many parties to satisfy).
- sctb 10y agoPreviously discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12311433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12311433. We also reverted the editorialized submitted title to that of the article.
- cdvonstinkpot 10y agoI remember reading about this several days ago & that the article said how the US had decided not to let the UN run ICANN. When I saw this at the #1 position here titled "US to hand over ICANN to UN", my first thought was that this is real news, being a reversal of what had previously been decided. I immediately wondered what was behind such a decision. But then I see it's just an erroneous title, & it's the same as what I read previously. I agree the title should be changed- this is alarmist in its current state. EDIT: Seems the title was changed as I was typing this comment. Good.