SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In an effort to block Amazon from getting the top-level domain .amazon, Brazil may have put governments on a crash course with the private sector over control of the web.
In an aggressive and contradictory letter [PDF] on Wednesday to the overseer of the internet's domain name system, ICANN, Brazilian technology minister Benedicto Filho insisted the US non-profit not approve the creation of .amazon, and states strongly that governments have the final say on what should appear online.
As you may well know, Brazil is particularly enamored with the word Amazon, being the home of the Amazon Jungle. And it doesn't want some moneybags American retailer nabbing the top-level domain for the rainforest.
"It is the right and duty of governments – and not of Amazon the company, nor any panel constituted by three nationals of a single country in their individual capacity, nor even of the ICANN Board of Directors – to identify the public policy issues that may justify the Board to adopt certain decisions," Filho said.
He goes on to say that if ICANN was "required to substitute the views of governments and the GAC [Governmental Advisory Committee] for its own judgments ... it would be dealing a fatal blow to the multi-stakeholder governance model upon which ICANN is based."
In essence, Brazil says that unless ICANN does what it says – in this case not allow for the creation of the .amazon top-level domain for Jeff Bezos' Amazon – then the entire model of internet governance that the organization represents, where all parties including governments, the technical community and business have an equal say, is invalid.
That extraordinary contradiction – that an equitable decision-making process only exists so long as governments have the final say – is not the only one in the letter.
Filho goes on to insist that all governments agree with Brazil and Peru's position that .amazon not be added to the internet, but in making his case only cites meetings held in Brazil by Brazilian interests.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/27/brazil_dot_amazon_gtld/
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday October 10 2017, @01:46AM (4 children)
Yeah, I don't know which dog to back in this fight, but I'm leaning toward Brazil. Companies do not need their own domains, the existing categorization works fine.
The problem as I see it is that someone else might object to Brazil's ownership of the "Amazon" name. They've been less than stellar guardians of that name sake. There is nothing to be gained by opening another land rush on TLDs, it won't be easier for people use, it will just start more squatting and bickering.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday October 10 2017, @02:51AM (2 children)
I back Brazil in this, just as I would back Iraq if the word "Mesopotamia" was in dispute, or back the USA if the Chinese tried to shanghai the word "America".
You are so right about all these TLD "land rushes". Sure makes for a lot of disputes. And a lot of unnecessary expense as companies try to keep others from making similar looking sites using their name on other domains. ( remember that whitehouse.com pornsite fiasco ? ).
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 10 2017, @11:27AM
What about Americans trying to shanghai the word "Shanghai"? :D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 10 2017, @02:17PM
I went to whitehouse.com No porn at all. Sad now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 10 2017, @01:54PM
You don't need to back either dog. In fact, this analogy presents one of the few cases where I support American-style policing with Steven Seagal: Roll up in a tank, shoot both dogs, and arrest both Brazil and ICANN. (Dogfighting is illegal, after all...)
It's not really about Amazon or the .amazon tld; it's about who gets to control the internet in general and DNS in particular. ICANN says ICANN should control the internet, even though it's answerable to nobody. That's bad. Brazil says governments should control the internet, even though they (in reality, not theory; can you seriously imagine an otherwise-popular political party being ousted over what tlds they did or did not support?) are also answerable to nobody. That's bad, too.