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."

13 of 343 comments (clear)

  1. Bad joke time by The+Slaughter · · Score: 5, Funny

    ICANN'T even .tel you how bad this news is for the internet community at large. ICANN and the root dns need to Server all ties with the bush administration. (oh god... I am a horrible person).

  2. I'm starting to get fed up by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    with the idiotic patriotic dick waving really...why is the US so afraid to cooperate with international organizations?

    What is the reasoning behind this step, apart from making more money for some corporations? Is it really a viable threat that ICANN is some Al-Quaeda offspring organization?

    Mod me as you like, but please think at least for a second about what i said.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:I'm starting to get fed up by spellraiser · · Score: 5, Funny
      From TFA:

      The Bush administration announced that the U.S. government will not hand over control of the Internet to any other organisation, a surprise move that could presage an international flap.

      Wow ... this means that talking about 'the Internets' might actually become an accurate expression. This is what we pay politicians big bucks for - they're visionaries who shape the future. My support for the administration has risen to new heights.

      --
      I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
    2. Re:I'm starting to get fed up by Evro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ICANN is largely inept. Regardless of its national origins, they should not be in control of the Internet.

      --
      rooooar
  3. Re:Fine by me. by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny
    And we should just allow people to pick and use whatever IP address they want too.

    And I want a pony.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  4. This Is Being Played Different Ways All Over by DanielMarkham · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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"

    1. Re:This Is Being Played Different Ways All Over by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 5, Funny

      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"

      You forgot:
      FOX News- "Bush saves American Internet from Evil Foreigners!"

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
  5. Read the actual statement by Ingolfke · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't interact w/ a summarized article. Read the actual statement from the US government. I wish these news sites would link to their sources when they're available.

  6. On the fence by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not really sure what to make of this. I definitely do not think that having the root domains under control by the US government is a good idea, and I also do not think that ICAAN is really up to the task either. I wonder if it might be better to have the root domain servers be distributed throughout the world (run as non-profit organizations, with only minimal fees required to maintain the servers, and executive salaries at these orgs capped).

    --
    "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
    1. Re:On the fence by swimin · · Score: 5, Informative

      How about using something that already exists, like opennic?

      It is a currently running, non-profit organization that provides its own set of root DNS servers. They resolve all of the official domains(with the exception of .biz, because there is a dispute over it), and several others, like .oss (open source software).

  7. Re:Fine by me. by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Aren't there already a number of "free" root servers that are under non-govermnental or non-verisign control? There is nothing prohibiting changing to new root servers other than just getting people to bother making the switch

    http://www.orsn.org/

  8. GOOD. by haakondahl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look at this in terms of China's bid to pwned Unocal. (CNOOC is *not* a company, it is a corporate-smelling arm of the Chinese government). Energy is a strategic asset. Now look at all of the credit card information stolen/lost/inappropriately xferred lately. Information is a strategic asset.

    Xferring control of Root DNS servers does not necessarily lead to compromise/abuse any more than leaving your credit card lying in a bus station will necessarily lead to your account being, er, misused. Similarly, retaining control does not guarantee security, but why screw with it? Who should take up this burden--the Oil-for-food-United-Nations?

    The fact is, the US created the internetworking protocols, and laid the early hardware. Much of the structure is US assets, which the whole rest of the world is free to use.

    I, for one, welcome the same old overlords whom at least we [sorry y'all] can vote on. What will you do when CHINA wants to throw a "broadcast flag"-level wrench into things?

    --
    Don't trust anyone under thirty.
  9. Since you want to make it political... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...perhaps it's because the "international organizations" we work with, like the UN, can't even keep their word and uphold the tenets of their own charters for things that are much more important than the root servers?

    Also, no one said anything about al-Qaeda.

    Except you, of course.

    But the US believes that the root servers are important enough that they should be under the control and purview of the same entities that have been their stewards in some cases since the literal inception of DNS itself, rather than an organization along with international entities that may not have the same level of experience. This isn't just about "keeping machines patched" or knowing how to run a DNS box. That's the most vanishingly small part of this equation.

    Also, it might help to remember that the US, along with its vast military-industrial complex, the Department of Defense and DARPA's investments into pie-in-the-sky technologies, and our massive academic research establishment are what you and the entire fucking world HAS TO THANK for the "internet", and we've already proven that we can manage the root servers and have a secure and well established network of capable contractors, so I think that, given the geometrically increasing importance of the internet to the US and its economy, you're damned straight we have a vested interest in making sure critical internet infrastructure is properly administered (and by "administered", I don't mean from a sysadmin perspective).

    And while the corporations with the root server contracts make some money and might not want to see that go away, this decision is NOT for "making more money for some corporations". It's been made for the security of these critical infrastructure pieces. In our own system, we have some accountability and we know it. Even if ICANN meets the DoC-set guidelines, there are no guarantees that its capability and contingencies are better than, or even meet, the capability that already exists in the prevailing arrangement. Why ratchet back from predictability and reliability, and a known set of variables, frankly, to "please" the international community? The "internet", in general, was not an international creation. It was a US creation, the result of a lot of investment and research dollars from the exact entities that no one else would have supported. The fact that it has easily become an exceedingly open international and global tool is a testament to its creators.

    I'm starting to get fed up with the anti-US dick waving on slashdot, really...

    Mod me as you like, but please think at least for a second about what i said.