Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 35 posts

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#11

Post by kijeda »

textmode wrote: post #9

There is no "transfer" of anything. Anyone can edit the root.zone file. I use my own curated version. Great for blocking ads, etc. But for many years no one did this, except very rarely. And the honors were left to some folks in the US, IANA/ICANN. Do not be fooled by the acronyms and the fabricated processes and formalities on the official websites. IANA was essentially one person. Bless the hearts of those who work…

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sure, anyone can create their own root zone. I can create my own .com zone too and point my resolver to it instead. But what use is it if it doesn't contain useful entries that point to things I want to access? What use is it if all the parties underneath it aren't sending me updates to the zone?

Someone has to do that job for it to all work. Do the managers of the hundreds of TLDs around the world contact you to update your version? No, they send them to IANA.

The IANA's job is simply to be the authoritative repository of unique identifiers and associated configuration data — TLDs, IP addresses, port numbers, MIME types, etc. You are free to use your own bespoke IP addressing scheme, port numbers and MIME types too, but don't expect to be able interoperate with anyone else.

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#12

Post by kijeda »

pastProlog wrote: post #6

> What exactly is wrong with the current setup? What exactly was wrong with the 1998 setup? ISI and Jon Postel were managing fine back then. I also don't recall a "US control over ICANN" that could be "relinquished" being part of the original ICANN proposal. I don't think that would have gone over well with the European operators at the IETF meetings. If it had been they probably would have stuck with the CCITT's x.2…

The 1997 white paper that triggered the creation of ICANN sums up the thoughts at the time:

"From its origins as a U.S.-based research vehicle, the Internet is rapidly becoming an international medium for commerce, education and communication. The traditional means of organizing its technical functions need to evolve as well. The pressures for change are coming from many different quarters:

* There is widespread dissatisfaction about the absence of competition in domain name registration.

* Conflicts between trademark holders and domain name holders are becoming more common. Mechanisms for resolving these conflicts are expensive and cumbersome.

* Many commercial interests, staking their future on the successful growth of the Internet, are calling for a more formal and robust management structure.

* An increasing percentage of Internet users reside outside of the U.S., and those stakeholders want to participate in Internet coordination.

* As Internet names increasingly have commercial value, the decision to add new top-level domains cannot be made on an ad hoc basis by entities or individuals that are not formally accountable to the Internet community.

* As the Internet becomes commercial, it becomes less appropriate for U.S. research agencies to direct and fund these functions."

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#13

Post by jakebasile »

erichocean wrote: post #10

> "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 ICAN…

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?

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#14

Post by pastProlog »

erichocean wrote: post #10

> "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 ICAN…

> 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 ).

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#15

Post by jakebasile »

pastProlog wrote: post #14
erichocean wrote: post #10

> "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 ICAN…

> 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 ).

So a previous change occurred and that means that any further changes cannot be scrutinized? I have no love for my junior Senator but that doesn't mean I cannot be concerned about why this particular change is happening.

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#17

Post by snowwrestler »

jakebasile wrote: post #15
pastProlog wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ).

So a previous change occurred and that means that any further changes cannot be scrutinized? I have no love for my junior Senator but that doesn't mean I cannot be concerned about why this particular change is happening.

Senator Cruz is not scrutinizing the decision. He is using it as political fodder. There is a difference.

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#18

Post by jakebasile »

snowwrestler wrote: post #17
jakebasile wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a previous change occurred and that means that any further changes cannot be scrutinized? I have no love for my junior Senator but that doesn't mean I cannot be concerned about why this particular change is happening.

Senator Cruz is not scrutinizing the decision. He is using it as political fodder. There is a difference.

I don't really care who is doing it or why - I want to know why this change is so necessary if it is ostensibly such a minor change.

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#19

Post by Claudus »

I guess my concern, and as a simple question:

Right now domains like wikileaks.org and thepiratebay.se exist. Will they continue to exist in the same manner going forward? Or, in a few years, will attacks on these domains be made, and their domains seized?

I'm really concerned about this, above all.

Post reply on HN