Judge Says No Way To Attorneys General Looking To Block IANA Transition
from the transition-is-a-go dept
Well, this isn't much of a surprise, but following the ridiculous last minute attempt to block the IANA transition by four state attorneys general (who have absolutely no standing or argument), a judge has flatly denied their request for an injunction meaning that the transition is a go for midnight tonight, barring any really last minute unforeseen methods to block it (or a desperate leapfrog to an appeals court).Having spent part of the morning responding to clueless conspiracy theorists on my earlier post, I'm sure you're going to hear the standard ridiculous lizard people warnings about how this is enabling "the UN" or "leftists" and "globalists" to "takeover" the internet and how it will allow China to build the "Great Firewall" into the core functioning of the internet. None of that is even remotely true. What happens tonight at midnight is... nothing, basically. ICANN, which has managed the IANA function through its multistakeholder process for almost two decades... will continue to do so. Nothing changes. The only "change" is that the US Commerce Dept. no longer has to issue a contract to ICANN for the IANA functions. And that's it.
But, at a larger scale, what this does is preserve the way internet governance currently works, and makes sure that governments are not the one running the show. Under the ICANN setup, things are not decided at the whim of any government, but through a much more involved process, that allow lots of non-government players -- including the engineers who built the internet and keep it functioning -- to have a major say in what happens. This is good. ICANN is far from a perfect vehicle for internet governance, but this change is a good one.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attorneys general, iana, iana transition, internet governance
Companies: icann
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Mental Masturbation
But, in circle jerk world, these are
the legal filings left on the floor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ICANN's approach to new TLDs has been shameful -- a cash grab that benefits no one but registries, registrars, and themselves. They even granted a monopoly on adult-related TLDs to a single registry (ICM), with rules on what kinds of content is allowed on them (read item #3 of ICM Registry's anti-abuse policy -- it seems benign until you consider fictional or borderline but legal content). ICANN is now regulating content, and are almost impossible to get rid of. If that doesn't worry you, it should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, yeah, because .xxx is a Sponsored TLD. Use policies are not only allowed, they're expected by the nature of STLDs. ICANN is not regulating any content here; they've created a TLD where the sponsor is expected to develop its own use policies consistent with the proposed nature of the TLD.
The process for authorizing STLDs is pretty transparent: https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/
If that doesn't worry you
It doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If sponsored TLD policies concerned only the qualifications for obtaining a domain (e.g. .aero for the aerospace industry, .coop for cooperatives, etc.) it wouldn't be much of a problem, but as soon as content becomes an issue the ICANN process becomes a tool for censorship. Just look at the rationale ICM used for gaining a monopoly on literally all adult-related domains (.xxx, .sex, .porn, and .adult): control over content and website practices was a key issue in their proposal to ICANN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The IANA piece of the puzzle now has slightly different oversight.
That's all. If you want to take up an issue with ICANN or IANA, nothing about the channel for doing that has changed.
You go to the same place (the internet), and you talk to the same people. The only change is that our most likely corrupt and very definitely incompetent government no longer has almost nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The US government does not and never had control of the root anyway. Of course any crazy government can try to take control of it. What the heck do people imagine is the difference between "US" and "Other" in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DONE DEAL?
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"you're going to hear the standard ridiculous lizard people warnings"
...when I've heard multiple different points of view on this issue from people's opinions I normally trust (to a point).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Belittling ones readers is generally not a good idea. I get it that everyone is extra thin-skinned during these times but I hope these types of attacks doesn't become standard practice here on TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It couldn't be any worse than it is now for the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kittens terrified the internet shut down.
The internet has officially been shut down. All servers and host have been deleted after the smooth transition. YouTube and kitten meme are now Gone! Where will we be able to find those precious kitty overlords?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It only works because people want something that works. The Internet is just a large set of Interconnected actually independent networks that want to have a useful connectivity to each other.
If the Chinese or US or Russian governments (or any other for that matter) want to, they can simply pick up their marbles and go home. The current agreements for the various protocols in use are not set in stone and in many ways are only gentlemen's agreements, irrespective of what anybody may think about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes I know clients are not always right but you still have to treat them nice, otherwise they go elsewere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Politicians can only be so stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it isn't. I don't want phucktards like Al Gore deciding what's best for the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments can't influence IANA now, ROFL
Gee, I wonder how China ever convinced independent, for profit, companies to assist in oppression? You don't suppose the same trick would work with IANA, now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are lizard people even a thing?
Are we actually insinuating here that we "trust" government to, I don't know, never behave in a solely self-preserving and protectionist manner?
Are the currently agreed upon protocols somehow left vulnerable is some way I fail to understand?
Do moderated TLDs pose some sort of threat to those that are not?
....
Hold on.. I think the internet just went pitch dark.. The light has just gone off in my tube. My cat!! It's gone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IANA is now a private company, which means the last thing it wants to do is piss any country off. So now civil rights are set by every government each according to its whimsical decisions to fine or ban IANA (reduce income) or to pay extra for a few "extras" (increase income). In short IANA just became a money-grubbing slave to every government's civil rights whims.
Some people claim that is much better than IANA being dominated by one government...even the government that dominated it. I say wait 5 years or 10 and let's see what tune you're singing then. And I'll even go so far as to say my bet is that it won't be a happy tune.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
IANA is not a private company. IANA is a function that is controlled by ICANN, just as it was for nearly two decades. None of that has changed.
And if ICANN didn't care about pissing off countries in all this time, so why should it start now? Again, people who keep talking about "countries" don't seem to understand even remotely how ICANN currently handles IANA, which is a process that allows a variety of different stakeholders *outside of governments* to take part in the decision making. That is it's a process that is not run by governments.
So. Yeah. This is wrong.
So now civil rights are set by every government each according to its whimsical decisions to fine or ban IANA (reduce income) or to pay extra for a few "extras" (increase income)
You don't even seem to understand what IANA is. Please. Educate yourself.
In short IANA just became a money-grubbing slave to every government's civil rights whims.
Uh. No. This is beyond wrong. IANA is a function, not a company, and it's not getting money from governments and not "money-grubbing" from governments.
Seriously. WTF are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Though I suppose it could be one of those things that Fox News viewers continue to be angry about for years even without ever really knowing what it is. Like Saul Alinsky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]