Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Icann

  1. #1

    Default Icann

    I don't know whether I should be for or against this:

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/stop-ob...ast-ditch-bid/

    You all know how I feel about government competence generally, but this may be a special case. Any thoughts from the ADISC tech brain trust?

  2. #2

    Default

    Like most cases where technical intermingles with political, there's a great deal of (both intentional and unintentional) miss-information and a general lack of understanding surrounding the actual technical details, but similarly the outcome is unlikely to be driven by those same technical details anyway, so it doesn't _really_ matter.

  3. #3

    Default

    I haven't really read all the details but, as a global resource, oversight of the Internet needs to be handled by a politically and nationally independent body.

    So handing things over to ICANN, who use a "community-based consensus-driven approach to policy-making" seems like a logical step forward, even if they are very US-centric.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by tiny View Post
    I haven't really read all the details but, as a global resource, oversight of the Internet needs to be handled by a politically and nationally independent body
    Agree in principle. In practice that sort of independence has been elusive over the millenia.



    So handing things over to ICANN, who use a "community-based consensus-driven approach to policy-making" seems like a logical step forward, even if they are very US-centric.
    When the internet was in diapers, that worked pretty well. Now that literally everything is dependent on it and real money is involved, motives get skewed. I guess I'm nervous about any person or group having that kind of power.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Agree in principle. In practice that sort of independence has been elusive over the millenia.
    ...
    When the internet was in diapers, that worked pretty well. Now that literally everything is dependent on it and real money is involved, motives get skewed. I guess I'm nervous about any person or group having that kind of power.
    True. But again, it's got to be better to have community representatives from across the globe collaborating to democratically determine policy, rather than leaving it to a government with inherent self-interest.

    As the news article on The Register reminds us:


    The internet had become critical infrastructure for most governments, and tolerance for the United States' pre-eminent role was growing thin. But it wasn't until Edward Snowden revealed the depth of US government surveillance online that the ground finally shifted.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09...r_is_go_go_go/

    It's got to be a good thing to take administration away from a self-serving, government operating illegally, and hand it over to an "independent" body. I'm as sceptical as you that it could ever truly be independent, but it's got to be an improvement. With a community of international policy-makers, there's less chance of the Internet being abused as a tool for political leverage.

    The Internet is a global tool that doesn't recognise imaginary geographic borders. So no one nation should be allowed to totally control any part of it. It's too important for us.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    I guess I'm nervous about any person or group having that kind of power.
    What power specifically? What is it you think is actually being "handed over" here?

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BoundCoder View Post
    What power specifically? What is it you think is actually being "handed over" here?
    Don't know. That's why I asked the question. Just the power to set standards and definitions can be significant.

    Back in the day, as a salesman, I knew the win was often determined before the bid hit the street. A smart, connected salesman gets the RFQ written around his product or service to any potential competitor's disadvantage. Or a politician who wants his brother-in-law to get a contract writes the specs so only the b-i-l can comply.

    Edit: If you don't think words mean things, and that changing definitions is significant, consider the word 'marriage'.
    Last edited by Maxx; 02-Oct-2016 at 15:49.

  8. #8

    Default

    The Washington Post had an article about this just today. They talked about the concern that many people had but according to people who work with it, they didn't think anything would change. The concern was of course, could outside sources disrupt the WWW and with the possible break in from Russia on our election sites, there seems to be some justification for concern. The safeguards that are in place aren't going away. Everyone has a vested interest that things work. Large corporations invest millions to safeguard their sites, etc. The U. S. government as well as other governments will still be doing the same things they always have done to protect our interests. Anyway, that was their take on it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.