Nickname: Tinkerman

Review: The power to assign names is the power to tax, and control access. Giving this power to anything other than a non-profit coordinator without political agenda is Real Big Brother. As bad as ICANN slipped up on the xxx domain issue, they have done a good job as a mediator, and should continue - unless you want to go to the UN for a domain name, only to find it costs a lot more, to pay for "needed infrastructure" and has to fit inside the national "quota".

Date reviewed: Jul 31, 2006 7:16 PM

Nickname: Rocky

Review: As a US government contractor for the last 18 years I am abhorently opposed to the government controling anything. However, in this case the balance has been successful. I have never understood the objections to the .xxx domain. It would make filtering and parental control much easier and cheaper provided there were punitive policies in place for violations. What ever mechanism is in place to keep ICANN from going totally private is imperitive to the health and survival of the internet. The UN is only one bad scenario. Imagine some rich Iranian shek or China buying it. They already monitor and sensure what they can and it would only be expanded to the rest of the world. I say keep it as is but rethink the .xxx domain.

Date reviewed: Jul 31, 2006 12:26 PM

Nickname: paradise

Review: Under no circumstances should the UN be given control of the Internet! Oil for food anyone? That august body already has laws written to tax all international communication in order to become a private self-sustaning body answerable to no one. The U. S. should always be the final authority with the Internet.

Date reviewed: Jul 31, 2006 3:55 AM

Nickname: Johnathan

Review: The previous comment reflects the most unsophisticated perspective I have heard in a while. The .xxx proposal had the support of hundreds of parents and childrens groups world wide and in time would have significantly helped consumers to 'chose before they click.' While there can never be no perfect solution, like the Motion Picture Association of America, by at least trying to label adult sites, we offer consumers more protection and support than they have currently. With more than 250,000 child porn websites operating without restriction world-wide, you would dare suggest that doing nothing was a more productive choice?

Date reviewed: Jul 29, 2006 8:11 PM

Nickname: bud

Review: Continue with the exisiting system. It is working. U.N. oversight, in my opinion would be a disaster.

Date reviewed: Jul 29, 2006 6:53 PM

Nickname: Hutch

Review: ICANN deserves a vote of confidence for the progress made toward transparency and process improvement. ICANN fostered competition in the domain name registry and registrars has paid-off for the consumer in lower prices and better services. Improving the security and reliability of the DNS infrastructure, the new WHOIS, and transition to IPv6 are important technical contributions to the future of the Internet and should be accorded higher priority and more resources. Ties to the US government via the Department of Commerce MOU should be updated reflecting today's ICANN and today's Internet. Without the power of the US government, .xxx would have become a gTLD registry -- offending a huge portion of the world's population. Someday a better "political oversight" process for ICANN may be constructed, but oversight by a organization like the UN could sink ICANN with political agendas not relevant to the evolution of the Internet technology.

Date reviewed: Jul 29, 2006 9:24 AM

Nickname: joe

Review: The existing arrangement has been good and ICANN is doing as well as can be expected at the process of privatization. The DOC is right, however, to be very careful about relinquishing all control of the domain name system to private, for profit entities or to the U.N. When ICM proposed what many citizens considered a flawed .xxx domain name program under a guise of safeguarding children people objected and wrote to the government. Where else would they write? Now the fact that the U.S. government may have intervened is being used to wrest control of the Internet to other interests. ICANN so far has representation from government, business, intellectual property, and free speech advocates. But literally no one there is representing the interests of families and children online. More time is needed for the general public to understand how Internet policy is made and to get involved. Until that happens, having someone accountable to the general public is a good thing.

Date reviewed: Jul 28, 2006 1:20 PM