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?
Why does ICANN want the DNS servers ?
Or quit as an editor. This is ridiculous.
ICANN Won't Get DNS Root Servers
That's the second time in the last couple of days the US have decided to hold onto DNS. It's starting to seem like a habit.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/01/061825 0&tid=103
rooooar
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
Can anyone look at the history of the UN and honestly say that they would be any better, rather than a lot worse? Does anyone want the organization that puts the Sudan and other bloody, human rights violating states on its human rights commission to be the ones to regulate who gets a domain name? I sure don't.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Slashdot: Slashdot Won't Let Go of Dupes
An Anonymous Reader wrote in with a story on the Slashdot site, reporting that the Slashdot editors are going to keep control of the Duping System rather than handing it over to intelligent moderators that would be capable of successfully weeding out repeated stores. From the article: "...Slashdot is committed to taking no action when it sees a repeated story arrive for publication on its website, as this would have the potential to positively impact the effective and efficient operation of Slashdot.org.
Yeah well, the agency within the UN that would administrate the TLDs, should the US release control over them, is the very same agency that made sure that the world has one telephone standard, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
The ITU was founded before the UN was, and oviously, it has very little to do with human rights issues, they just happen to share some organizational structure.
This constant ignorant whining of the "the UN is a worthless piece of garbage" kind, is getting on my nerves. Educate yourself instead of repeating soundbites you heard on the news.
More info here: ITU history
I think Internet ownership pretty much ends at the borders. Perhaps it's time for alternate root DNS? Sounds a lot like a job for the UN. Sure they'd probably fuck it up with even more politics than US ownership, but it still sounds like a UN project.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
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.
No, see, that would have been funnier this way:
ICAAN!
US: You can't.
ICAAN!
US: You cannot.
ICAAN!
US: No, You can't!
The unofficial
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.
Basically, the identities of the root nameservers are defined by the contents of the root hints files in the nameserver software used by every company and ISP on the planet. If a release of BIND comes out and it has a certain IP address in its root hints, then that's what the people using that release of BIND will use. If Windows Server 2010 uses a different IP address, people using that nameserver will get that root server instead.
So, most of the big nameservers out there are using BIND, with dedicated Windows shops running AD or running BIND on Windows and everyone sane using UNIX, it's really up to Paul Vixie at ISC. So long as he plays ball with the Commerce Department, nobody needs to get hurt...
The origins of the ITU are meaningless to this discussion because the ITU is now a UN agency. Do you know what that means? It has become part of a world body that has done precious little to actually help the world rather than trying to become a one world government accountable to no one but the rich and powerful.
If I am so ignorant of the real, good accomplishments of the UN, the please post them here. Let's see them.
I am distrustful of the UN because most of its members are completely undemocratic tin horn dictatorships that wouldn't know good government if it bit them in the ass. Actually, they probably would since they have spent so much of their effort to ensure that their people don't have it!
People like you need to just accept the fact that there are a lot of well-informed people who disagree with you based on what they have learned about groups like the UN. The UN has never "kept the peace" anywhere it has ever been, nor has it ever done anything of substance elsewhere. It'll always been a pawn of the richest and most powerful nations because they are the ones with the largest individual populations and the most wealth. The US, EU, Japan, Russia and China account for half of the world's population. Even if we "democratize" the UN, it'll still be controlled by the G8 and China.
Besides, WTF does the ITU setting the standard for telephone systems have to do with anything? Is that supposed to be like some special dispensation from the pope that whitewashes all of the shit caused by the UN around the world? We already have a world standard for the internet in the form of TCP/IP and no one, last I checked, is debating whether DNS should stay as a standard. The only debate here is ownership, and that is a very relevant concern when it is a UN agency that wants to take over ownership.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
The UN may have its problems, but it does succeed sometimes.
Have you ever heard of the World Health Organization, a part of the UN? They are working hard to eradicate polio, which is a terrible disease, and things are looking good so far.
Do you still think the UN has been useless for the last 40 years?
They want to keep the DNS so they can justify the new internet tax!
If the government controlled DNS, it would be completely screwed up and the porn sites would be deleted. Also, the CAN-SPAM legislation would not have been necessary. They would just delete spammers.
Daily News http://newsblaze.com
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)
Exactly, and that can't stand. I propose, instead, that the servers be placed under the control of Robert Mugabe. It solves two problems: 1) They're no longer in the U.S., so you're happy. 2) It shows the difference between "invented here" syndrome and a real egotistical maniac.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Now there's a man who's demonstrated a hard-charging, can-do, UN un-criticized attitude.
Just the man for the job.
I just can't understand the US reticence.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Slashdot: Slashdot Far From Dupe-Free
Anonymous Reads writes: Despite efforts by a coalition of the willing and intelligent moderators, Slashdot refuses to relenquish control of its Duping System - capable of successfully weeding out repeat stories - to the aforementioned group. Says a Slashdot source: "...Slashdot is committed to taking no action when it sees a repeated story arrive for publication..." When asked about the reason for this, our source commented that efficiency and effectiveness would not suffer. Editor: How long can this go on? This is rediculous!
(I kid, folks. The dupes don't bother me.)
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
is the decision that will result in all words up to four letters being TLD's. Then someone can finally register a .fart domain, and we can declare all of the domain names officially taken.
I was personally thinking of the international criminal court, but that's another good example... and then there's always kyoto... and...
Ah fuck it... you ain't listening anyways.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The Internet was funded with US taxpayer dollars and has been open to the world to use without financial consideration or gratitude for the research money that went into it. If the US Govt wants to run the root servers that is purely a domestic US issue. 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.
The U.S. won't "let them go"? Are the servers trying to escape?
suddenly I feel very tired
Come on, now. I don't like it any more than anyone else when the government runs my life, but ICANN is one bunch of slobs that I wouldn't trust with a water gun. I don't see any reason for slashdot to have its feelings hurt so much :)
I'm going to try to make sense of our post, which is not a trivial task. I'm an American and I love America, by the way. I just don't agree with you.
... world?" I can't really argue against two different opinions so pick the one you're going with.
Don't blame the UN, eh? I didn't see Russia, or South Africa, or France, or Belgium, or any other country doing jack fucking shit to help the people of Sudan.
What's your point? Because no one else helps we shouldn't either?
The only "big part" of the UN the United States plays is its seat on the security council and the assload of money we hand over to the useless, corrupt ambassadors of the rest of the world so they can buy their children faster cars.
I'm not real sure what this has to do with your point (if you have one). Anyway, the UN has done some good. Look at the WHO as an earlier poster pointed out. It's not just a big money hole that does nothing, although it has been corrupt in the past. Oh, right, so has the US government. Remember the Nixon administration? Our government is not the saint you think it is.
This is the fucking problem with the rest of the world. You bastards are too fucking lazy/appeasing/pussy to stand up against ANY wrong doing. The second someone does stand up to fix a broken region of the world, you all harp in about how self cenetered and evil they are. You totally fucking ignore whatever evils are being comitted, and turn on whoever is doing something like a pack of wild dogs suddenly turning on its own.
When did America stand up to fix a broken part of the world? No, really? Don't say Iraq. That was for oil and nothing else and you know it. Deep down, you know it. Why aren't we helping the areas that are even MORE broken than Iraq but would cost less to fix? Oh, right, oil.
Yeah, I think what happened in Sudan was terrible. There's not a lot I can do about it, however. But saying America did nothing - what, we're supposed to police the hole fucking world so that everytime some group of backwards, cave dwelling fundamentalists decide to go to war with their neighbour, it's our fucking fault? What the fuck do you think the UN was created for?
Earlier you say we should stand up to evil and fix broken parts of the world, now you basically say "What, we're supposed to police the whole
Now you go into an anti-Islamic rant that I'm not even going to bother pasting. Again, I'm not real sure what your point is.
Don't fucking defend the UN when they fail to do their job by trying to make this the United States or any other countries fault. The people at fault here are those who are comitting the attrocities in the Sudan, and its the responsibility of the UN to keep the peace. (SURPRISE! That's why they call them UN Peacekeepers!)
Why don't you apply this logic to Iraq, and let the UN do its job there? Oh, right, oil. When the UN doesn't do its job in one area (in your opinion) we should invade and "fix" it ourselves, but when it doesn't do its job in another area we should just stick our thumbs up our nether regions and wait for someone else to fix it?
In conclusion:
I know you're smarter than this. Realize your potential by thinking for yourself and not letting the Bush administration form your opinions for you. We may still disagree, but at least you'll be worth arguing with.
Please reply.
Le français vous intéresse?
no problem, with the US in control, it will probably be outsourced to india or another country before too long...
Gekido's Lair
The UN is the world's last best hope for peace.
... will mean perpetuating war."37
This cliche has achieved near universal acceptance because of sheer repetition; it has been repeated so often that people assume it must be true. However, only by some tortured application of Orwellian "Newspeak" can the UN be referred to as a "peace" organization.
During the summer of 1945, Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., one of America's foremost scholars in the field of international law, prepared an analysis of the UN Charter. His learned appraisal and cogent remarks fly in the face of popular platitudes and conventional "wisdom" concerning the "revered" document. Ambassador Clark's examination led him to conclude that the Charter "is a war document not a peace document," and that it "is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace." The Ambassador noted:
[T]here is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war.33
Moreover, said Ambassador Clark,
Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.34
The Ambassador's predictions were soon borne out -- first in Korea and then in Vietnam, the first two wars America fought with UN involvement and the only two which the United States has ever failed to win.35
Dr. J. B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and one of America's outstanding scholars on Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, was but one of many leading Americans who exposed the UN-as-peace-dove myth. Dr. Matthews was not one to mince words. "I challenge the illusion that the UN is an instrument of peace," he said. "It could not be less of a cruel hoax if it had been organized in Hell for the sole purpose of aiding and abetting the destruction of the United States."36 Senator William Langer (R-ND), one of only two senators with enough courage and foresight to vote against the UN Charter, said "I feel from the bottom of my heart that the adoption of the Charter
The UN's monstrous war against the people of Katanga should forever lay to rest any reference to the UN as a peace organization. The UN and its supporters may persist in the charade of calling the UN's warmaking powers "peacemaking" or "peacekeeping," but no sensible person of goodwill should give the slightest credence to such patently deceitful abuse of language.
Ron Paul