Judge Says No Way To Attorneys General Looking To Block IANA Transition

from the transition-is-a-go dept

Fri, Sep 30th 2016 3:54pm — Mike Masnick

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.

Judgeicaan (PDF)Judgeicaan (Text)

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

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

SpaceLifeForm, 30 Sep 2016 @ 4:37pm

Mental Masturbation
Previously, it was motion practice.

But, in circle jerk world, these are
the legal filings left on the floor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:17pm

Could the US government retake control of the root zone file should ICANN fail to manage it in neutral fashion someday? That, to me, is the key issue. Who wrests control away from ICANN should they fail to serve the needs of the public? That used to be an option; it isn't anymore. Essentially, we are now stuck with ICANN unless ISPs decide to adopt a different root (along with the horrible mess that would create).

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 thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:26pm

Re:
(Adapted from my replies to Mike Masnick's tweet on the subject.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
allengarvin (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:59pm

Re:
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

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 thread ]
John Mayor, 30 Sep 2016 @ 10:44pm

DONE DEAL?
It would be DELUSIONAL to believe that this "Transition" is a "DONE DEAL"!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 11:49pm

Is it to early to hope that once they hear by 'Liberty Carrier Pigeon' that the transition happened, that none of them will be back online... assuming the Great Firewall of China would block them from getting the truth about chemtrails?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 12:07am

Re: Re:
The fact that ICANN is allowing TLDs to set such policies is precisely the problem. So yes, ICANN is regulating content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 1 Oct 2016 @ 12:09am

Re: Re: Re:
[by TLDs read the registries that manage those TLDs]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 1 Oct 2016 @ 12:46am

Re: Re: Re:
Another thing...

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 thread ]
TKnarr (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 1:18am

Re:
Who could wrest control away from the US Government if they failed to manage it in a neutral fashion? They've demonstrated they're quite willing to ignore the rest of the world when deciding questions related to domain names. The transition, OTOH, will render non-neutral management less of a possibility because, unlike under the current system, IANA will be run by all stakeholders and not just one government. ICANN won't have any say in it's management or decisions after the transition, and having to convince governments, companies, registries, ISPs and public representatives that a proposal is correct and fair is going to be enough of a problem even when the proposal is completely reasonable and it's going to be nigh-impossible when one or more of the governing stakeholder groups disagrees with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 2:38am

While I normally enjoy Mike Masnick's writing, I really don't appreciate the ad hom:

"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 thread ]
Capt ICE Enforcer, 1 Oct 2016 @ 5:07am

Kittens terrified the internet shut down.
Breaking news.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 5:27am

In Mike's frustration at trying to deal with what he considers to be clueless conspiracy theorists, he has forgotten that

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.
is something that can change overnight by any government of sufficient size.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 6:55am

"-- including the engineers who built the internet and keep it functioning -- to have a major say in what happens. This is good."

No, it isn't. I don't want phucktards like Al Gore deciding what's best for the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 6:58am

Given Mikes stance, he almost certainly has a personal stake in the matter ($).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 8:28am

Governments can't influence IANA now, ROFL
@Mike Masnick "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."

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 thread ]
Glathull (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 8:38am

Re:
The extent to which ICANN regulates content (which I happen to disagree with you about) is exactly the same as it was yesterday.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 8:43am

Re:
Agreed,

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 9:03am

Re: Re:
The difference is now the US government can't take control away from ICANN should they adopt more objectionable speech policies, either directly or through registries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 9:55am

Re: Re: Re:
I have news for you, the politicians are much more likely to want objectionable speech policies that the engineers and admins that co-operate to administer and improve the Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 11:00am

Re:
Lol.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rapnel (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 11:56am

Why am I having such difficulty in understanding almost every comment so far on this posting?

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 thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 2:43pm

Re:
You realize anyone can set up a parallel domain system anyway, right? It's been done.

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 thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 2:44pm

Re: Re:
Yeah, those are only allowed in the comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 2:46pm

Re:
No one ever forgot that and it is completely irrelevant to the transition. Completely non-governments already can and have run their own parallel DNS because they feel like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 2:47pm

Re:
@@
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 2:50pm

It's bad enough dealing with people in support situations who don't and won't understand how the internet works. Now they all have an opinion about this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 3:30pm

Re:
And if they take their ball and leave, they're gonig to get demolished by the public demanding access to things they can no longer reach due to now being limited to Hollywoodnet/Russianet, not the Internet.

Politicians can only be so stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 3:59pm

Re: Re:
See following story on chairs for rebuttal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 4:00pm

Re: Re:
If they hadn't forgotten, then Mike would have made a different statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 9:07pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'm not against Mike but the "clients are always right" law says he should have calmed down before writing this particular piece.
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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 1 Oct 2016 @ 9:21pm

Re:
Looking as a non American at the forerunners and idiots that are likely to be elected to the American Presidency (IMO Hillary is the best of the two idiots) I for one would welcome "ridiculous lizard people" running the USA.

It couldn't be any worse than it is now for the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2016 @ 9:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
but the "clients are always right" law says he should have calmed down…
The “ ‘clients are always right’ law” ? Look, bub, I don't know who you are, but I think you need to go twit @ScottGreenfield about that law —or maybe comment over on his blog for awhile.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 2 Oct 2016 @ 9:56pm

Re:
@Rapnel Are we actually insinuating here that we "trust" government to, I don't know, never behave in a solely self-preserving and protectionist manner?

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 thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Oct 2016 @ 10:27pm

Re: Re:
IANA is now a private company, which means the last thing it wants to do is piss any country off.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2016 @ 7:17am

Re: Re:
Side Point: My biggest issue with STLDs was that the TLDs themselves were already used by various people internally. ICANN basically wrested domains in use and started to sell them to the highest bidder. Most notable was New.Net, which I don't think exists anymore (.travel and .xxx) but still irked me a bit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad, 3 Oct 2016 @ 5:03pm

Re:
They'll probably all forget about it by next week and be on to the next outrage.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2016 @ 12:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Politicians in the United States are bound by the First Amendment to the US constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 4 Oct 2016 @ 12:13am

Re: Re:
False. The US government had control of the root up until the day of the transition. ICANN had been granted the right to administer the root file under contract with the US Department of Commerce, which retained the right to veto alterations and could terminate the contract upon expiration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]