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."
Lets start up our own DNS servers and let the US isolate themselves as they choose.
:D
Fine by me
Time for a change in technology me thinks and dump the concept of DNS altogether so no body has complete control to hold the others to ransom.
From CNN -- "US keeps control over internet computers"
From the Brits -- "US appears to affirm its authority on the internet"
From the Canadians -- "US to control internet traffic"
India -- "US won't cede monopoly on the internet"
Seems like the same story has several different headlines, and to the uniformed eye some of them in conflict (yes. I know you can make the case they're not all that different. But monopoly on the internet it isn't). It would be nice if the people writing the stories understood what a root server was. Might make for a more informed public, you know?
Check out "SarBox And The World Of Tomorrow"
This is my thought, too. I am surprised that for something as critical as a root server, that there are not a well distributed (geographically) set of servers. I know that local caching goes a long way to resolve this, but at least spreading them around a bit may help out if any of the major intercontinental links fail, like the recent SME-3 failure which knocked Pakistan off the net.
The problem is that now that the Internet has grown to the size it has, it will take quite a long time for the changed IP addresses to filter through if the root servers get moved. There would be any number of smaller ISPs, specialised applications or even techie home users who poll the root servers occasionally, and who won't bother to update the IP address. Why they are polling the root servers in the first place, and not their local upstream copy, is probably due to a design failure which will require the maintenance of the current root servers to continue operating.
InfoSec that matters, when it counts.
Come on where's the D in DNS if we need central authority... Crypto has gone a long way since! Some authorities could sign pairs of DNS + IPs and have these distributed anywhere. For exemple I could chose to trust organization foo and bar to provide me safe a safe DNS. Requiring coincidence of two unrelated authorities would marginalize the risks of dns poisoning. The authority don't even need bandwith for that, they could be goolgle, yahoo, ibm, gnu, ms etc. As for who decides who gets a domain name, except for specific extensions (gov, countries etc) this should be open to anyone, and basically registering would simply consist in referring one's domain name to major authorities before someone else does.
\u262D = \u5350
Thank you for that information. I didn't know about it. I, for one, will be configuring all of my systems to use this, as well as my own DNS server.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Who on earth called this "insightful"? I know, Slashdot doesn't have "kneejerk windbag" modifier, but "insightful" is hardly an appropriate substitute.
Hey, you forgot to say "Halliburton". And "black helicopter". And "Gore really won, and so did Kerry". American or European Left (or "Social Libertarian" as you please), you're not hard to pick out with your poor argument and large following.
And before I get modded "Troll" or something like that, please consider this: the parent was modded "insightful" while using the phrase "dick waving". How much insight was required? Did anybody look at that post and say to themselves "well *that* was something I never knew"? So if I sound a bit agitated, well, I am. Gosh, have a nice day.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
I have long felt that the internet, while created by the US, should evolve into a complete international body. That ICANN should take over all authority of the internet. Unfortunately, this will bring the same level of difficulty as the UN has, but to a lesser degree.
I have long felt that as we evolve, (socially, and politically), the idea that all of the earth will eventually fall under one global gov't will happen. I also feel that this won't happen until long after space travel becomes a normal mundane thing. Systems like the internet, will not only help bring this, but are an essential part of this.
Keeping with that mentality, the internet needs to serve everyone's interest, and to do so, it must be controlled by an open body made up of an international representation.
Good idea, i switched my own caching nameserver to it. It still runs of US servers but we'll see what happens.
The Internets are a strategic resource of the United States. As an American, it would be swell if France just gave away its wine, South Africa its diamonds, or Saudi Arabia its oil. However, the Internets are ours. If you don't like it, compete with us and create your own, but don't whine that we won't just give it away.
Actually the backbone routers are far more of a liability - take down the DNS root servers and caches would keep things ticking over for a few days. Take down a couple of backbone routers and the resulting BGP storm might take down the internet...
American news is worthless--it's just scenes of car chases and celebrities doing dumb things. That's our news. In America, real news only comes from 2 places--public broadcasting (NPR & PBS which the government clearly wants to kill off) and the internet. Yes, we have to go overseas to find out what's happening in our own country. Broadcast flag, National ID, Downing Street Memo--most Americans have no clue what these things are. If the US government wants to control the internet, you can bet it's so that they can control the information that we receive so that they can carry out their agenda with minimal risk of a revolution. There's no tinfoil hat here. This is right out in the open. We're pwned.
What you said about the US contribution has some merit, but it is not the only factor in deciding things. The problem is that the rest of the world is subjected to the US in this matter, which is bad, history can tell you about it. The whole concept that one government is dependent on another one's intentions in operating a vital infrastructure in the economy is highly repulsive. I'm sure that the US doesn't mind that role, but you have to realise that it is _NOT_ working on the long term. Don't think today or yesterday, think tomorrow.
Parallel example: How do you think electronic banking works? Is the relative biggest bank operating the network? No. The banks united and created a company for the specific purpose of operating that network. They have a share in that company based on market size and economic power, because that was the only way they've seen it ensured that their interests are neutrally and objectively held. I don't see how that situation is different given the very same hierarchical state (there are 5-6 "root" banking servers in the world).
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say