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..."
If you believe everyone plays fair, then put servers in other places, but the root servers need to work together. What happens if a government decides its going to play dirty and screw up the whole system? What about physical security? How can you guarantee that if the root servers are spread out across the world? There have been few problems so far and no dirty pool. Leave it as-is unless theres a compelling case to do otherwise.
Daily News http://newsblaze.com
It doesn't even rhyme.
Seriously though, what's stopping anyone from making free rootserver clones?
So there....
What is the rest of the world gonna cry about it?
Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
This is just my understanding of the situation, and it probably has errors. That said, I've not once seen a good plain language explanation of how this all works, and what the actual powers and obligations are. This is my understanding of what an IETF regular told me.
Neither the US or ICANN actually determines what goes into the root name servers: It's just by convenience and general agreement (but not obligation) that the root nameservers decide to humour ICANN, and let them maintain the list of names. There is no law or contract that says they have to do anything that ICANN says.
Congress doesn't control this, and never did, if I understand right.
Please correct my understanding; I'm sure at least some of this is wrong.
Why would you want the expense and hassle of running this if you don't have to? The point is, ICANN wants it so they can change things.. what do tehy want to change, and how will it benefit you and me, the average user?
Time for an organisation to come up with FreeDNS. With enough cooperation, it's not impossible to bring FreeDNS networks. It might seem utopia but as in any other thing, having an alternative is always better than monopoly.
They want to keep the DNS so they can justify the new internet tax!
It has become part of a world body that has done precious little to actually help the world
The UN was designed to do one thing: prevent World War III.
It did that exceptionally well. The USSR and the USA never had a huge tank/nuke war in Europe, and their proxy wars were fought with unusual restraint given that each side had nuclear arms.
The fact that the UN has been used to do some other things is a comparative footnote.
Personally, I'm distrustful of them because the US veto has consistently kept them from being effective. When the #1 threat to world peace and prosperity has a veto on anything you do, your options are pretty limited...
Actually world peace is not threatened very hard these days. The three major world powers (USA/China/USSR) all have similiar goals and are achieving them economically. They find economic warfare has better PR, lower costs, and is more effective then troops. The single thing hobbling the Un is it's "democratic" nature. In so far as 1 country = 1 vote with a few notable countries gettign vetoes. The vast majority of those countries are run by horrible people trying to enrich themselves at everyone elses expense.
The Us itself is trying to secure oil to shore up it's resources in the coming all out economic war with China and the EU. As for peace, my peace as a chinese middle class canadian is threatened more by the Muslim populace (not just terrorists, but also because most of the thugs in my city happen to be lebenese.)
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
" Personally, I'm distrustful of them because the US veto has consistently kept them from being effective. When the #1 threat to world peace and prosperity has a veto on anything you do, your options are pretty limited..."
Yes, vetos of ridiculous resolutions by anti-semetic nations condemning Israel for defending itself is hampering world peace and prosperity.
Vote for Pedro
Like the GPS system (also US taxpayer financed in the billions and used by the world without gratitude or financial consideration), if people in other countries or Americans don't like the US govt administering it, go build your own.
Then why did the US government object so strongly to the European Magellan project?
You're a colony that rebelled, cost us goodness knows how much directly and lost us control of the world, grudgingly help us out a few times and you expect us to be grateful?
Yes. It's about time that you recognize that England was in the wrong at the time that the U.S. colonies revolted.
1763 - The Proclamation of 1763, signed by King George III of England, prohibited any English settlement west of the Appalachian mountains and required those already settled in those regions to return east. These were people eeking out an existence in an new land and the English government was requiring that they abandon their home, crops, and everything that they had worked so hard for.
1764 - The Sugar Act was passed by the English Parliament to offset the war debt brought on by the French and Indian War and to help pay for the expenses of running the colonies and newly acquired territories. This act increased the duties on imported sugar and other items such as textiles, coffee, wines and dye. It doubled the duties on foreign goods reshipped from England to the colonies and also forbade the import of foreign rum and French wines.
1764 - The English Parliament passed a measure to establish a court in Halifax, Nova Scotia which would have jurisdiction over all of the American colonies in trade matters.
1764 - The Currency Act prohibited the colonists from issuing any legal tender paper money. This act threatened to destabilize the entire colonial economy of both the industrial North and agricultural South, thus uniting the colonists against it.
1765 - In March, the Stamp Act was passed by the English Parliament, imposing the first direct tax on the American colonies, to offset the high costs of the British military organization in America. For the first time in the 150 year old history of the British colonies in America, the Americans were to pay tax not to their own local legislatures in America, but directly to England.
Under the Stamp Act, all printed materials are taxed, including; newspapers, pamphlets, bills, legal documents, licenses, almanacs, dice and playing cards. The American colonists quickly united in opposition, led by the most influential segments of colonial society - lawyers, publishers, land owners, ship builders and merchants - who are most affected by the Act, which was scheduled to go into effect on November 1.
1765 - Also in March, the Quartering Act required colonists to house British troops and supply them with food.
1766 - The English Parliament passed the Declaratory Act stating that the British government had total power to legislate any laws governing the American colonies in all cases whatsoever.
1774 - On May 13, General Thomas Gage, commander of all British military forces in the colonies, arrived in Boston and put Massachusetts under British military rule. He is followed by the arrival of four regiments of British troops.
1774 - May 20, The English Parliament enacted the Quebec Act, greatly upsetting American colonists by extending the southern boundary of Canada into settled territories claimed by U.S. states.
1774 - In June, a new version of the 1765 Quartering Act is enacted by the English Parliament requiring all of the American colonies to provide housing for British troops in occupied houses and taverns and in unoccupied buildings.
Given the way that England treated the colonies, it's a damned good reflection on our character that we helped defend England at all in WWII.
Yeah, I remember. You didn't want to touch it until the US itself was attacked, even though without the nation being invaded (France) your country wouldn't exist.
It would have been easy for us to strike back at the Japanese and leave it at that. Instead, we entered Europe at a great cost to fight beside the Allied troops.
The fact is, you did elect him, under your own system, you can't blame us for judging you by the rulers you pick.
No, *I* didn't elect him. I didn