3 ms·

> "The US government has never, and has never had the ability to, set the direction of the (ICANN) community’s policy development work based on First Amendment

> "The US government has never, and has never had the ability to, set the direction of the (ICANN) community’s policy development work based on First Amendment ideas," ICANN said in a statement. "Yet that is exactly what Senator Cruz is suggesting. The US government has no decreased role. Other governments have no increased role. There is simply no change to governmental involvement in policy development work in ICANN."[0] This is the primary issue I have with every single one of ICANN's rebuttals[1]: nothing will change (so they say), and yet, here we are, making a change. Okay, then, here's a stupid question: why is a change being made? Ted Cruz may be an ass, but that doesn't make ICANN's position correct. If nothing will change, they guess what? No change is necessary. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If something will change, then ICANN should be entirely up front about what that change exactly is. Instead, we get a bunch of denials that nothing will change, the US has no current role anyway, yadda yadda yadda, but serious you guys, we have to change this right now. We're talking about managing the DNS system here, that's not an "insignificant" thing, as other commenters have suggested. Yes, existing ASes can already block specific domains today. Fine. But ICANN could easily become a Title IX-type situation, where ASes are forced to block specific domain names in order to remain part of the global Internet system.[2] It's true it doesn't police ASes that direction today, under the existing ICANN governance model, but there's (to my knowledge) no reason why that couldn't be true today (under US control), and I see no reason why adding "more stakeholders" will make the situation any less likely in the future. If anything, it makes it more likely: look at the UN. Certainly ICANN itself doesn't think it's any less likely, but here's what they don't say: with this change, it'll be extremely hard for US citizens to fix if it does come about. That's not "insignificant" to me. [0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/y2k-2-0-is-the-us-government-set-to-give-away-the-internet-saturday/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/y2k-2-0-is-the-us... [1] https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions [2] For instance, consider how the US Justice Dept. is using "Dear Colleague" letters in 2016 to force schools to adopt a less-rigorous sexual assault policy or face loss of federal funding. ICANN could apply similar pressure to ASes in the future (not funding, but zone updates or whatever).

jakebasile 10y ago
That's my beef with it, I can't figure out a concrete reason why this is important. Any change around something as important as DNS deserves scrutiny but this one has mostly been handwaved away. I am particularly concerned that it is described as a purely technical move with no effect on censorship capabilities as if those are mutually exclusive. What is the goal here? What problem is this solving?
- d215 10y ago
  On of the main reasons is political: "It will signal that the U.S. has changed its position and no longer believes in a private-sector led internet and that governments will play a primary role in making the final decision. Russia, China, and others will welcome such a decision." (https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions) ICANN and others are afraid that certain, mostly authoritarian governments will want to break away from the global DNS and/or IP allocation system to form alternative, walled systems under the pretext that the US government 'controls the internet'. So ICANN and others want to take away any argument, however feeble, that supports this position.
  - jakebasile 10y ago
    I don't understand why we should want to placate censorious governments, let alone by giving them even a modicum of power over something this important. Furthermore, if the transition of ICANN won't be a cause for censorship, then why would it placate those governments? If the threat is that they're going to break away and make their own systems, wouldn't that be in order to more strongly stifle free speech? If that is their reason for breaking away, the only way that giving them partial control would prevent that is if the system we already have is made to be more controlled instead. I really don't see any upside to this, as a US citizen strongly in favor of free speech. There very well may be no downside, but I've seen no strong case for this that doesn't come down to global politics to appease other nations with far less stringent free speech protections.
pastProlog 10y ago
> No change is necessary. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why was it changed in 1998? ISI was perfectly capable of handling the function. Ted Cruz is indignant that the US Department of Commerce is transitioning out of a role it took up from ISI in 1998. This is the same Department of Commerce which Cruz pledges he is trying to abolish on his web site ( https://www.tedcruz.org/five-for-freedom-summary https://www.tedcruz.org/five-for-freedom-summary ).

jakebasile 10y ago

That's my beef with it, I can't figure out a concrete reason why this is important. Any change around something as important as DNS deserves scrutiny but this one has mostly been handwaved away. I am particularly concerned that it is described as a purely technical move with no effect on censorship capabilities as if those are mutually exclusive. What is the goal here? What problem is this solving?

d215 10y ago
On of the main reasons is political: "It will signal that the U.S. has changed its position and no longer believes in a private-sector led internet and that governments will play a primary role in making the final decision. Russia, China, and others will welcome such a decision." (https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions) ICANN and others are afraid that certain, mostly authoritarian governments will want to break away from the global DNS and/or IP allocation system to form alternative, walled systems under the pretext that the US government 'controls the internet'. So ICANN and others want to take away any argument, however feeble, that supports this position.
- jakebasile 10y ago
  I don't understand why we should want to placate censorious governments, let alone by giving them even a modicum of power over something this important. Furthermore, if the transition of ICANN won't be a cause for censorship, then why would it placate those governments? If the threat is that they're going to break away and make their own systems, wouldn't that be in order to more strongly stifle free speech? If that is their reason for breaking away, the only way that giving them partial control would prevent that is if the system we already have is made to be more controlled instead. I really don't see any upside to this, as a US citizen strongly in favor of free speech. There very well may be no downside, but I've seen no strong case for this that doesn't come down to global politics to appease other nations with far less stringent free speech protections.

pastProlog 10y ago

> No change is necessary. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why was it changed in 1998? ISI was perfectly capable of handling the function. Ted Cruz is indignant that the US Department of Commerce is transitioning out of a role it took up from ISI in 1998. This is the same Department of Commerce which Cruz pledges he is trying to abolish on his web site ( https://www.tedcruz.org/five-for-freedom-summary https://www.tedcruz.org/five-for-freedom-summary ).