Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Government Finishes Internet Study -- 7 years late

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the they-started-about-the-same-time-as-slashdot dept.

djp928 writes "A study commisioned by Congress in 1998 to report on internet traffic has finally been published -- 7 years, two presidents, and one internet boom/bust later. Some of their findings include "DNS is good" and "We should probably have some more TLDs""

13 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. no more TLDs, please by suso · · Score: 4, Informative

    "We should probably have some more TLDs"

    I don't think we need any more TLDs. Especially since silly TLDs like .museum and .aero are created which are either too long, or aren't restricted in use to just museums and aerospace companies. I feel that online commerce has bent themselves on destroying the usefulness of DNS. Nearly one quarter if not more of ccTLDs can be purchased by the public and used for any purpose. What will happen when countries like Tuvalu (.tv) reach technological savyness and find that their entire TLD has been used up by TV networks, domain brokers and companies that felt they needed to register theirname.com, .net, .org, .cc, .mx, .name, .info, and .tv just in case someone actually thought of typing one of those instead.

    On top of that, some ccTLDs are being sold for crazy prices. I found one regist
    rar that was trying to sell .ro extensions for over $500/year. What?!? Why? D
    oes 'ro' mean something in the same way that 'tv' does?

    People need to learn to properly use what they have before we can move on. Unfortunately, this has rarely happened in our society and in the end sadly, money rules the day.

    1. Re:no more TLDs, please by dave1g · · Score: 2, Informative

      That country willingly sold off (possibly leased?)its rights to the .tv domain. Its poor population was much better served by that transaction than reserving .tv domains for its citizens.

      The market put a price on .tv. The government of Tuvalu said CHA-CHING! Everyone is happy and everyone benefits.

  2. $1 million by wils0n · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTA

    "Lawmakers had demanded the $1 million federal study, ultimately called "Signposts in Cyberspace," under a 1998 federal law, the Next Generation Internet Research Act."

    1. Re:$1 million by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Firstly, you realize that the people that wrote this study are going to exclaim that they need another 7 years to revise the study so it'll be suitable.

      Secondly, I bet if you read in the study it'll say stuff like:
      "It's in our judgement that internet worms are not going to be become factors until at least 2010."

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    2. Re:$1 million by rs79 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The study was used as a tactic by the trademark lobby to impede deplyment of new tlds. "We must assess the effect on stability of the internet by doing such a thing". NTIA nodded its pointy little head and commissioned the report. You'll notice all new tlds added by ICANN todate are considered and declared "experimental". Never mind that 100 new cctlds were quietly added in the past decade.

      And now the report says "dozens of new tlds should be added each year".

      Duh. Double duh. This what Jon Postel said in 1996.

      We now return you to your regularly schedulred ICANN who will do as close to nothing as possible in the area of new tld creation as they can get away with and still pretend to represent the consensus of the Internet community.

      Saaaaaaaay, notice how many lawyers and IP guys are on the ICANN board now? Just a coincidence I'm sure, I'm certain we'll see lots of new tlds RSN.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  3. Re:What's a TLD? by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · · Score: 4, Informative

    *sigh* A TLD is a Top Level Domain. Examples of Top Level Domains are .com .net and .org.

    --
    I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
  4. Re:Fewer TLDs are needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Someone else didn't take the .com version of your domain, you took the .net version of THEIR domain. Notice how they paid for it and registered it before you? Thats why they have it and you don't.

  5. Re:They should have... by mattmentecky · · Score: 3, Informative

    Gah!
    Why is it anytime the 'history' of the Internet is brought up someone ALWAYS goes for the cheap Al Gore laugh!
    http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm Read.
    You are a victim of spin. I have a question: When George Bush refers to anything with 'we', such as "we invaded Iraq" should he be lambasted because he didn't technically invade anything?

  6. The Study Is NOT Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The study was not late- it was STARTED in 1998. If anyone took the time to read it, the published research plan offers the study as an ongoing project, and research will continue even after these findings have been published. This type of academic work will likely go on for decades, progressing as does the internet (although I believe the US gov. is the wrong people to be conducting such a study.)

  7. Re:Here's another study 7 years to late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    My cynicism is in full force after reading this news item today.

    Step 1: Claim there's WMD in Iraq.
    Step 2: In the face of the rest of the world disagreeing with you, invade.
    Step 3: When no WMD are found, launch an investigation into your intelligence.
    Step 4: Investigation demands that spy agencies are unified and should have more power.

    It's almost the perfect plan. You get to invade with no real reason (excepting the spin machine's claims of 'freedom and democracy') while simultaneously conglomerating power at home. 9/11 was the excuse used to create the DHS, Iraq gets to be the excuse used to create a new TLA.

    ps: were this fark, someone would be all over me immediately pointing out how the rest of the world agreed that Iraq had WMD based on pre-war intel. i just wish more people would pay attention to the stories about *british* intelligence participating in black-intel, fabricating the Iraq-Niger connection.

    pps: yes, i missed Step 6: Profit!

  8. Re:The Study Is NOT Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The article says it was started in 1998 and supposed to be finished in 9 months. How is that not late?

  9. Re:How about replacing internet1 ? by kneeless · · Score: 2, Informative
    TCP/IP was designed to be reduant incase of a nuclear war. It was never meant to be secure or high performance.

    Are you joking? TCP was designed to be redundant for data intregity, not nuclear war you bozo. And in many cases (such as high data loss situations, wireless) TCP outperforms UDP because of the window and it's confirmation. UDP only has a checksum, when it doesn't get the same info, it resends; TCP is smarter.
    --
    Bran muffins and whiskey.
  10. Don't blame the bureaucrats, blame Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    At the bottom of the article:

    "U.S. government didn't open its wallet as promised to pay for the study until 2001"

    That's how it works here in Washington. First, Congress passes a law authorizing a program. But until it passes a spending bill to appropriate money for the program, nothing happens.

    Somone in the Commerce committee writes a bill authorizing the study and gets it passed. But getting the members of the Appropriations subcommittee and full committee to include funding for the study in the annual Commerce appropriations bill is a different thing entirely.

    There are thousands of discretionary programs that either never get funded or are underfunded, so they basically just never happen.