Slashdot Mirror
South Africa Wants Control of .za
fdiaz5583 writes "Recently, the South African government wants to seize control of the .za domain. However, ICANN owns the domains and under the ICANN rules, they will not relinquish control. Mike Lawrie who is global administrator of domain names states: 'If it becomes illegal for me to do the job under South African law and if I am not authorized by ICANN to hand over the administration, the .za domain will have to shut down until the issue is cleared up'." We mentioned this tussle earlier. The .za administrator doesn't like the way the government is going about this; the government, of course, has men with guns, so it's not like he's going to win in the end, it's only a question of how ugly it will get.
Who should, rightfully, get control of a country's top-level names? I have no doubt that Mr. Lawrie has done a good job, and for years with no pay at that, but he also isn't the one who built the infrastructure. I am not convinced that the government is always the best administrator, but why is looking to an undemocratic, unrepresentative corporation like ICANN any better?
I'm biased.
It seems lately I've developed a knee-jerk reaction to anything Microsoftian and/or coming from this two-bit^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H democratically elected leadership. When I see stupidity, I really dislike it. Unfortunately, it looks like it's on the rise.
To the world out there, I can only say a couple of things:
To the couple of South Africans who are reading this I just want to say:
That's it. Sit back and watch the show people, I can guarantee you will be entertained!
ICANN better get used to situations like this. Putting up an electronic embargo around a domain name should never be an option for ICANN. What are they going to do next, pull China's TLD because of human rights abuse?
/. job to tell another country what formal process to use in administering their TLD. I don't care what RFC exists that dictates this, it means nothing. Honestly, to the people involved in this who are so upset they were not consulted...blah..blah..blah: Get over yourselves.
First of, this is a democratically elected government with a formal bill making process, all of which has been followed. It's not ICANN or the readers of
This sort of political manuvering happens everyday in large corporations. Threatening to cause a blackout if the bill is passed only proves their point. I also have to say, I find it insane currently this has been done by one unpaid party with no formal/legal binding to the country. What if this Mike Lawerence guy was smacked by a bus? Who's his backup? Who knows what he knows?
And so they started their own redelgation process, but the DoC Sun Tzu'd them and came at them with the sun behind their back. Who cares, give it to the Gov't. It's theirs anyhow. They'll figure it out. If they spend 12million (whatever currency) on it, you have something to campaign with when you go for the Chairmens job. That's the way it works.
Stop acting like the dorky network administer who's pissed off his little department LAN has been absorbed by Corp IT, and he's no longer _GOD_.
Okay, lets look at this in another light.
A country passes legislation that it's elected goverment should have control of its internet policy, and not a quasi-goverment 'board' of unelected officials.
Is it right for ICANN to mandate things upon an elected goverment? Is it right for an elected goverment to mandate things on ICANN?
These are issues that need to be adressed, this is just an issue of a goverment wanting to 'control the internet'. South africa do have a bad history of being controled by foreign commities after all.
I also find it mildly offensive that the Slashdot edditors automaticaly assosiate South Africa with Gun Toating Totalitarianism.
The more chaos the better.. one day piz.za will be mine.
Top level domains should obviously be controlled and administered by the government of the country they represent. The .za domain is the zone of an entire country. The name registrar is therefore a monopoly of services, and all monopolies should be regulated. The government should delegate management to a (private) organisation that is able to provide the quality services that are required. If that company does not provide the services, then the government should choose a different company.
Thats the same as the US government not having regulatory control over their own airwaves/airspace. Crazy.
---
The real beef is that governments are historically less speedy in providing the services required, but this should not prevent any government from having regulatory authority over the naming and addressing of the internet within its own borders.
---
-Tim
A South African.
---
I dont like the idea of potentially putting a company out of business because of governemental involvement, but some of the proposed regulatory changes will have to happen at some point in the future, in many places in the world.
Q?: Why should ICANN have a whip over the internet naming of an entire country? ICANN should recognise the regulations of govermental regulation of its namespace.
I think the admin should leave the country, a government this irrational is likely to blame him when they take over and find either that they've been unplugged from the root or that their attempts to do well meaning but wrong things will have the same effect.
Tech Public Policy stuff
ZA is the ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 designation for South Africa.
It is from the Dutch, Zuid Afrika
SA is Saudi Arabia
DNS is merely a directory that applications consult. There is nothing cast in stone about ICANN's choices, or a government's. Only the users' settings matter. The user selects a server, and the server selects its root server(s). It's a hierarchy of trust up to "."
.com, .org, and other TLDs too. The problem is that most end users don't know how to choose anything but what their ISP tells them. And there has been no reason to "fork the root" yet. A few non-ICANN domains exist, but they're not widely accepted yet.
So if the South African government and ICANN don't agree, then each DNS administrator (at least for the main root nodes that others consider authoritative) around the world, or for that matter each non-root DNS server operator who knows how, can select whichever ".za" TLD server they prefer. The government can run one, and the incumbent can run one. Frankly, it is more important what John Sidgemore thinks, because he runs the largest backbone ISP. ICANN exists because Bernie Ebbers before, and John now, let it. My guess is that ICANN would not advise the server operators to obey a government over itself. Operators within South Africa might have to, but the rest of the world is not subject to that jurisdiction.
Likewise, if users don't like ICANN, they can move to a different DNS for
Why should the government or indeed anyone in South Africa claim right to a convention that is used by the entire world to simply refer to them?
.za belongs to every single entity on the internet (using the current domain name system) because it is there to serve us as a reference to South Africa.
.za'. Is this actually an issue?
.za should not belong to South Africa because it refers to them,
I think if myself and the other residents on my street joined together and tried to seize control of our postal code (after all, it is how people send stuff to our street) we would be laughed at because it makes no sense.
Now I realise that puchasing of domain names has lead to a way of thinking that domain names belong to their owners, and therefor who better to own a country wide domain name than a body in that country, but I feel that is a misconception.
A more correct term for purchasing domain names is registering domain names (which can involve the transfer of money) which actualy implies the assignment of rights rather than the assignment of ownership. You get the exclusive right to have that name point at you, but it is never owned because it is just a name, and it belongs to the people using it to refer to you as much as anyone else.
Now what would help people (myself included) understand the situation better is an explaination of what you can actually do once you have 'seized control of
Please would someone care to explain the implications of such a situation. If it has all sorts of potential implications on how the internet or other global systems could pan out then it would be of great interest if these were explored in detail, otherwise who has control of a domain name seems rather irrelevant news.
Anyone who wants to manage an internet namespace (.ZA in this case) has three choices. (1) Overthrow ICANN, (1) Work within ICANN's rules, or (3) Ignore ICANN.
.ZA administrator would be happy to unload this unpaid job he's doing. Heck, buy it from him for $1.
.ZA does not exist outside South Africa's physical borders.
South Africa's mistake is that they chose option 3, and I will explain.
Option 1, overthrowing ICANN is an interesting option (good? bad? I dunno). This is clearly NOT South Africa's intent however.
Option 2, Working within ICANN's rules would have saved everyone a big headache. The current
So, what's wrong with Option 3? A web site is useless unless people can find its IP address. The only way to find the IP address is to look it up in the list published by the official domain administrator. To find this list they ask their LOCAL ISP (probably NOT in South Africa). If the South African government "seizes" control - publishes it's own list and preventing the current administrator from publishing a list, then the "official list" vanishes".
It would then be up to individual LOCAL ISP's to take it upon themselves to use the unofficial South African government list, or to follow the rules and answer "UNKNOWN".
The internet works on COOPERATION. Without it
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
To dispell a few myths(at the risk of being called redundant but it seems necessary given the level of knowledge here about places not big in the news): South Africa has a white minority of some 6 million people in a country of about 42 million, the rest being mostly black of various tribes, with about 3 million of mixed race and about 1 million asians. It's pretty varied culturally and worth a visit. It was ruled by the white minority for most of it'S political history and started changing after 1989 with the ending of racialy biased laws. It had it's first truly democratic elections in 1994 which the current government, the ANC won.
.za domain seems to be one of those things. Basically it seems as if they are trying to make the admin of the TLD *and* registrations more available to the majority of the population which is very poor and has no internet access. While I applaud this, I think they're going about it in the wrong manner and at the wrong place. Having control of the TLD isn't going to give anybody DSL or even Dial-Up overnight and even if they had the access, they still wouldn't have the computers. My guess is that this is going to end up in a bureaucratic, corrupt mess that some other government will have to sort out in the future. But you never know.
It has had a lot of ups and downs and has a horrific crime rate and a lot of problems, but, in general, it has done a lot better than many whites predicted(myself included). It has won a major legal struggle against international drug companies in it's efforts to legally produce cheap , generic anti-AIDS drugs.
One of it's unsolved problems is that the government is new in historical terms and tends to do things in ridiculously bureaucratic ways. This messing with the
Firstly, The .za debate is still ongoing, there's a lot that will happen still and hopefully common sense will prevail.
Secondly, I'm frankly not amazed at the kind of total troll bait that's filled up this topic, but what I am shocked about is some white South Africans attitude toward thier country.
The whole attitude of 'everything has gone to shit in the last 10 years'
Well, leave the country then - we don't need your negativity or short-sightedness.
Fact: everything was shit for 80% of the population for 100 years !
Fact: our new government now has to build an infrastructure to support 40 million people as opposed to 3 million 'privileged' whites and you expect it to happen overnight ?
Fact: There was no 'bloody revolution' and as a white South African, you have your patient fellow black South Africans to thank for that - give that some thought.
Yes, we have wide-scale corruption, crime, rape and numerous other problems - we have to fix that somehow. Name me a country without similar problems !
Yes, government is messing up badly on many issues, but heck, at least most people have a fighting chance to succeed these days.
Get over the fact that your a white South African and become just 'a South African' and for gods sake, help make the country work instead of publically degrading it at every opportunity !
We, as South Africa, are, like it not, a roll model for the rest of Africa - if we mess up badly, Africa stays in the dark ages for another 50 years.
As a white South African remember one thing, your living in AFRICA - wake up, this is not 'the colonies' anymore.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
There are those who say that because AIDS is so dangerous it is irresponsible for people to raise doubts around it, but I would argue that it is essential for people to question such things precisely because it is so dangerous.
A good source of information on the opinion that HIV does not necessarily cause AIDS can be found here.