Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Won't Get DNS Root Servers
daria42 writes "The US Department of Commerce has reversed its original decision on the Internet's root DNS servers, which would have eventually seen them pass into the hands of ICANN. While the original decision would have seen ICANN take full responsibility after it met a number of conditions, the new declaration means Commerce would keep that control, regardless of whether and when those conditions are met. It is possible that some countries could withdraw support from ICANN, and this decision even opens up the gate for a separate DNS system to be established outside the US's control."
This thing with you americans again.
Why do you think that what you think is best for everyone is really the best for everyone or that it is what people want?
How would you feel, if the dns would be controlled for example in China, regardless how neutrally they do it? The fact is, that the significance of the internet grows, and with it the DNS system's importance grows aswell, which means that the responsibility and power of those controlling it grows aswell. I believe, that no single government is qualified to be that dominant on the world, be it military or economy or a vital part of the internet. This isn't just about operating it well enough, it's about international cooperation, it's about being part of the world and sharing responsibility aswell.
So, the USA thinks he doesn't need the world? Think of the dollar, the world keeps the economy of the USA running, not the USA by itself. The USA should realise that even though it's a big country, it cannot dictate to the world, because he's relatively superior, not absolutely superior.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
They also gave us Microsoft ...
Anyway a phased hand over is the only way to go, which will probably happen when there Bush+Republican administration is out of office.
These guys are just control freaks and we have the rest of the world just has to live with that.
Although this is not huge, but its just one more thing alienating the US from the rest of the world.
Of course i don't accuse people of being bad just because they are americans. I got a lot of friends in the USA, but let me tell you: it is _really_ stereotypical of the USA govt. and some people over there, that they want to handle most things themselves without realising that they NEED to trust the world to handle things, because the world is heading towards a globalised economy and eventually a global authority (if some disaster does not struck in the meantime).
I wasn't trying to convince people, i was just trying to describe the current situation as i see it, as accurately as possible.
I agree with that last paragraph of yours, i probably should have described how i think or feel in a less rude way. If that means anything, i didn't realise that its that harsh.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Well put, you're absolutely right. So far, the US has done an excellent job maintaining the integrity and security of DNS, and there is absolutely no reason to take a risk by handing over the keys to an unproven international group.
I'm very happy to see that they aren't pandering to the feel-good international community with something as important as internet infrastructure. Better to placate them with some other BS projects.
There is significant international presence among the root servers, but the contract administrator will continue to be the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a component of the US Department of Commerce.
.com/.net/.org TLDs? Well, that's just a side effect of us having *created the whole damned thing*, besides which, anyone on the globe is allowed to get domains in those TLDs.
Can you explain how that translates to "The US doesn't have control over the asset?" Because IMHO it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. If the contracting agencies have to report to a component of the US government, then the US government has control.
They may have a "vested interest", but that doesn't mean they have the same capability.
It doesn't mean they don't, either.
Further, there is a lot of political angling going on for such control - a heck of a lot more political motivated than any US political motivations for keeping control centralized here.
OK, this is just hilarious. You're saying that there's less political angling in this particular wing of the US government than there is among the organizations trying to assert more international control? Obviously you've never worked in (or closely with) an organization run by the state. EVERYTHING is politically motivated, from decisions regarding international policy to who gets what office in the building.
This political angling for expansion of other nations' or international bodies' control over internet infrastructure has a potential for grave consequences, not to mention the possibilities for miscommunication, misunderstandings, and misapplication in such a transition.
This is just specious justification for maintaining US control. The real reasons are xenophobia and misplaced patriotism. (Not from you specifically, but I bet that's why the White House wants to prevent the transfer.)
Secondly, nobody can say for sure how well ICANN will manage this asset.
Touché. That is *exactly* the issue.
But it cuts both ways. Past history of competent administration is no guarantee of future performance. It's possible that someone's brother-in-law's golf buddy's accountant's cousin would be appointed to a position in the DoC that had influence over policy decisions, and run the thing straight into the ground. The end result is the same as if the transfer went badly, or the new administrators were morons. Either way, it could happen. IMHO one is equally likely as the other. Therefore there's no additional risk in the transfer.
And it might not (and probably wouldn't, given the fact that there would be a lot more political game-playing and posturing, a la ITER, going on, whereas the current system's mission is only stable, secure, and accountable management of DNS.)
See my previous paragraph. Same arguments apply.
The whole world ALREADY IS benefitting from the internet in spades, and has been for years! If you can explain to me why an international organization NEEDS to run the root servers in order for the international community to "benefit" from the internet, I'm all ears.
You answered your own question. The internet is an international entity, so it should be run by an international organization. The whole concept of the Internet arises from shared resources (eg thousands of sysadmins all over the world connecting and directing traffic in and out of their systems), so control over what arguably is the most critical component of the Internet should be shared among the governments that represent those sysadmins. The fact that the US proportionally has more of the infrastructure and more users than any other country doesn't mean we should have exclusive say over what contractors manage the root servers.
And as for
I'm reminded of a recent quote from Ann Coulter regarding Mexico and Canada. I'm paraphrasing, but the gist was that
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
" So, one Texas man is "the majority of companies" benefiting from Oil For Food?"
No fuckwad, there were more. I stopped after one link because it's not my job to rescue you from your ignorance. Why don't you research it yourself? It would do you better to spend some time actually reading shit instead of listening to talk radio or watching Fox News.
evil is as evil does