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

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#21

Post by mindslight »

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…

Sure, but there's a strong attractor for using the same root zone everyone else is using, by following the generally recognized steward (hence root.hints). Especially with naive protocols like http that lookup a name for every single object retrieval.

For instance, I'd love it if this recent TLD vomit could be nipped in the bud by people choosing to run their own root.zone. But as it stands doing so myself would merely inconvenience me. And this herd effect is magnified further because the custom is for ISPs to run recursive resolvers for their customers.

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#22

Post by hackuser »

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…

> What exactly was wrong with the 1998 setup? ISI and Jon Postel were managing fine back then.

John Postel did great things for the Internet. However, to make a point or as a 'test', one day in 1998 he redirected most of the Internet's DNS root server traffic to different servers. That was the last straw - maybe the only straw. Here's the Wikipedia version, which matches my vague memory of the story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Postel#DNS_Root_Authority...

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#23

Post by danarmak »

Claudus wrote: post #19

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.

Non-top-level names are subject to the rules established by their TLD manager. This is iiS for .se domains, and PIR (the Public Internet Registry) for .org. Each such managing organizations is more or less free to establish its own rules and to give and revoke DNS names (or delegate to registrars).

The history of the The Pirate Bay's many domain names (thepiratebay.xx has been registered at some point for almost any value of xx) clearly shows that different TLDs have different policies. Many revoked thepiratebay.xx on request, but some (like .se and .org) haven't.

I don't know what it would mean for ICANN to apply pressure to a TLD manager to change their rules or make an exception in order to revoke or transfer a name. But it would be a form of political pressure; there is no contractual obligation by TLDs to do whatever ICANN tells them to, and there is no technological mechanism in DNS itself to do so. Naively, ICANN seems to present less danger in this regard than the US Government did. Of course that doesn't mean the danger was or is small in absolute terms: the US Government is very good at political pressure!

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#24

Post by d215 »

jakebasile wrote: post #13
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?

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)

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.

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#25

Post by symfoniq »

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…

ICANN (as well as other supporters of the transition) believe that even the appearance that the US has control over ICANN is damaging to their ideal of keeping the Internet global, rather than devolving into numerous regional, government-run internets. ICANN doesn't want the Internet sharded under the pretext, "The US controls the Internet, so we'll create our own."

Whether this transition will help prevent that from happening remains to seen.

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#26

Post by snowwrestler »

jakebasile wrote: post #18
snowwrestler wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many resources for information linked in this thread.

Even minor changes have to actually happen at some point. This is one that has been under discussion for a long time. It just happens to be happening now.

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#27

Post by jakebasile »

d215 wrote: post #24
jakebasile wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 ) ICANN and others are afraid that certain, mostly authoritarian governments will want t…

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.

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#28

Post by dealthcider »

Admittedly, there is a bit of a lie by omission in the statements of ICANN. By agreeing to hand the institution over to an international stage, we are agreeing to censor access to small websites or alternate-view websites that don't conform to the standards or views of the corporation in charge of the new ICANN. In effect, we would be blocking access to small websites, limiting freedom of speech over the internet, and possibly in the future having internet access begin to mirror the same level of restrictions that television has.

Then, the international corporation would decide what websites you can access, and if the website you want to have a look at doesn't adhere to the corporation's view, it will simply become inaccessible.

There is also the question of political relevance; that is, why the urgency? Why require that this be passed during the Obama administration just before an election, and without congressional input?

To stop this? See this petition.

https://wh.gov/iMbbv Which routes to: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/stop-icann-handov...

ALSO, an interesting side note:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/4-states-sue-block-...

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#29

Post by drmcninjaturtle »

kijeda wrote: post #4

In operational practice, very little will change. The staff who perform the IANA function of managing the DNS Root Zone etc. will continue to do the same job, although those staff will now work in a separate subsidiary of ICANN. One operational change will be NTIA, an agency of the Department of Commerce, will no longer be required to authorize every change to the root zone in advance. In addition, ICANN the organiza…

So why is it impossible for the UN to exert similar political influence?

Re: Can you explain the ICANN transfer?

#30

Post by kordless »

kijeda wrote: post #4

In operational practice, very little will change. The staff who perform the IANA function of managing the DNS Root Zone etc. will continue to do the same job, although those staff will now work in a separate subsidiary of ICANN. One operational change will be NTIA, an agency of the Department of Commerce, will no longer be required to authorize every change to the root zone in advance. In addition, ICANN the organiza…

> seen as undue US government influence in what should be a purely technical operation by many

Infrastructure diplomats.

Post reply on HN