Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS
An Anonymous Reader wrote in with a story on the Eweek site, reporting that the Federal Government is going to keep control of the Domain Name System rather than handing it over to ICANN. From the article: "...the United States is committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS, and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file..."
And this is a problem how? This is an honest question. The U.S. has had control of the root servers since inception (as far as I have ever known) and things have been running wonderfully since... so what's the issue? We backed out of a plan to hand control over to ICANN because we were concerned? DU-H! Any country as powerful or even close would probably have done the same thing. //here's my solution
Keep one/two root servers in each country based on population of internet users/total population. Really, this is what I could see as being "fair" or "international" as they come in terms of a solution that would benefit everyone. That's a LOT of servers, right? Each country can come up with a solution as to how and what they'll be. Let the other countries make their own DNS servers and agree to everyone just co-operating with each other.
How hard can it be?
Or quit as an editor. This is ridiculous.
ICANN Won't Get DNS Root Servers
> Can anyone look at the history of the UN and honestly say that they would be any better, rather than a lot worse?
You'd probably be dead of smallpox, if not all out nuclear war, but hey who cares when you you've got fox news talking points to spread on the web.
I'll get you started on the path to some facts:
The World Health Organization eradicated smallpox. Guess who created WHO?
Playing the "rotating seat" card and claiming an evil conspiracy is pretty weak. The UN members states get representation of some kind, not just, say the US. Internationalism is ugly and messy. There's another country with a horrible human rights record that almost never gets mentioned by the "UN is bad, mmkay" crowd. Guess who? Guess who keeps covering for them in the security council.
Anyway, taking the "I hate stuff and I'm kinda a libertarian" stance on slashdot is a great way to get mod points. Congrats on your +5 post!
And while we're on the subject...
Why are we suddenly supporting ICANN? Because it's an opportunity to attack the U.S.? Come on, wasn't this the same organization that held meetings on critical issues in Ghana so that critics wouldn't come? (i.e. Let's hold an important meeting on how much we'll let the public participate in ICANN in a country with less than impressive internal stability so the critics will be scared away.)
Sorry, given the choice of ICANN control of root servers and US control of root servers... I'll stick with the current well functioning system. One of the two is subject to political pressure from SOMEBODY.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
most of the opposition is knee-jerk and FUD. Like the "evil Bushies" are going to take away your pr0n collection.
(insert rolling eyes emoticon here)
I think the US government is well aware how dangerous the Internet and the flow of information across it is to its enemies. Iran and company can only be ever destabilized by the Internet and cutting themselves off completely will leave them behind more and more. Opening up access will accellerate disaffection in those nations more and more. Either way, the days of these totalitarians is numbered.
Yet supposedly the US government is suddenly going to do all sorts of nasty things with their control of the root servers.
I doubt Microsoft, IBM, General Motors, CitiBank, etc. would put up with that nor would any of the other many thousands of businesses and in short order, their money would do the talking to congressmen.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Don't blame UN when you own government didn't do shit.
i.e. when the US acts without the backing of the UN, we're the big, evil bully. However, when the US DOESN'T act when the UN is disinterested, we're the big, evil, unfeeling nation who could care less about the plight of the rest of the world. Right?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?