Ommited from the headline: ... contingent on having a backdoor hardcoded into everything it is giving up control of
U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
11–20 of 24 posts
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#12Doesn't NameCoin (a blockchain to store name/values, i.e. decentralized DNS) solve this problem without the need for DNS servers (browsers hold a copy of blockchain), registrars, governments, etc?
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#13Doesn't NameCoin (a blockchain to store name/values, i.e. decentralized DNS) solve this problem without the need for DNS servers (browsers hold a copy of blockchain), registrars, governments, etc?
Distributed consensus algorithms in general, including all blockchain systems, could solve the registrar issue. Then you just need to solve the squatting problem.
Governments have never been required, they are just what grows out of a geographically delimited, naturally re-occuring monopoly on violence in human societies.
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#14Doesn't NameCoin (a blockchain to store name/values, i.e. decentralized DNS) solve this problem without the need for DNS servers (browsers hold a copy of blockchain), registrars, governments, etc?
Distributed consensus algorithms in general, including all blockchain systems, could solve the registrar issue. Then you just need to solve the squatting problem. Governments have never been required , they are just what grows out of a geographically delimited, naturally re-occuring monopoly on violence in human societies.
> Governments have never been required, they are just what grows out of a geographically delimited, naturally re-occuring monopoly on violence in human societies.
Governments aren't what "grows out of that", governments are that. You are presenting the definition of government as if it was an explanation of the source of government.
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#15More likely: U.S. agencies are confident enough in their other means to control the internet that they're willing to gain back a little good will by appearing to give up some control over ICANN. Let's not forget that the FBI/etc reserve the right to shut down any website for any reason, whether via a letter to a service provider, or simply showing up and confiscating hardware in the name of "national security". And y…
However most insiders feel that the suggested proposal for ICANN's HQ to move to Switzerland will probably come to pass in the medium term. Obviously US will still heavily influence ICANN but it's influence will definitely be diluted by this; the GAC will obviously still have a large influence via the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC).
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#16The argument about US "control" of ICANN has always seemed a little surreal to me. I took this photo on the roof-top deck at ICANN (they know how to throw a good party!) : http://www.flickr.com/photos/90065267@N00/10056736345/ . That's the Whitehouse, and the US Capitol in the distance, that proximity of influence isn't going away.
[deleted]
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#17This was going to happen years ago and the real announcement about this was made back then, too. This is not new news based on the NSA or anything else.
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#18I still don't understand how ICANN can justify what they
charge per domain name? They need to lower their prices.
It really adds up if you own a few domains.
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#19Title is misleading. Seems to me opening control of the ICANN will mostly address concerns regarding trade marks.
I wonder if it's not a way to prevent a fragmentation of the internet.
Re: U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
#20As long as most of the internet's infrastructure is controlled/maintained by US based companies (Verisign comes to mind), such relinquishing of control is a meaningless gesture, since the government can force any US based company to bend to its will.