EU Domain Registries & ICANN

rob_levine writes "Following on from the announcement a few weeks ago that the U.S. Department Of Commerce intends to retain control of the Internet's root domain servers (originally to be relinquished in 2006), several EU domain registries are preparing to build, test and install a system to prevent U.S. government meddling, according to this article in The Register. Could this be the beginning of the end of the centralised autocracy that is ICANN?"

Comments

Re:So basically.

[ADRA]

Re-read the facts.

ICANN is the 'offical' governing body of the internet framework, but it is a not-for-profit company, and has no real teeth. The depatement of comerce, a US governmental department says that they control domain names, and that ICANN has no real power over what ICANN manages.

The EU sees this as a threat since they are basically depending on the US government to maintain economic and social stability for all. I don't see a problem with this. If they can divide the IP blocks into multiple regions, I don't see the harm in doing it for DNS names. As long as everyone gets along and the systems blend together, no harm to me.

Monopoly(TM)

[lordsilence]

I believe ICANN brought this upon themselves. Or at least the people responsible for the root DNS servers to be "owned" by USA. Somebody said "but USA invented the internet" as an argument that it's just and right. Another smart person said that germany invented the gas engine. So then shouldn't germany have the control of all cars? My point being, is that the operation of internet should be an international effort. There should be no monopolies on any part of the internet. This creates nice opportunities for companies like verisign to ask higher registration fees. Where does this money go? I can hardly believe any of it is used to find all the registerated "spam"-domains with false registration info. Or regulating the people getting screwed over by their ICANN-certified registrar who in the reality doesnt seem very ICANN-certified. No refunds...

Re:Monopoly(TM)

[Skye16]

That argument makes no sense (the gas engine). Sure, we "invented the internet". We implemented it. It works. If you don't like it - hey, you know how we did it - make your own. Just like Germany allowed everyone else to do with gas engines.

Even IF I feel that argument to be ridiculous, it is going to be pretty sad that the rest of the world is pushed into that situation. However, considering the alternatives (like the UN running it, or China), I prefer how it is now. If you can setup a non-corrupt, laissez-faire, "we will unequivocally protect your right to free speech, even if it means allowing you to promote hate crimes or other unpopular and 'immoral' speech" international organization, then I would completely back it. Until then, however, you're not going to get my agreement (as if that really matters, but even so).

Re:Monopoly(TM)

[QuickFox]

There is currently only one network formally referred to as "the internet."

On the contrary, the Internet consists of a huge number of networks that are connected to each other.

In reality, these other countries could easily drop "the internet" and form their own large scale network capable of international communication. Nobody is stopping them.

I'm in Stockholm, Sweden. The United States did not finance and build the TV cable network that connects me to Stockholm's city-wide network of networks. The US did not build the city-wide network of networks either. These networks were financed by, and belong to, the cable company, various other companies, the city of Stockholm, the University of Stockholm, our Technical High School, and so on.

Go build your own if you want one too.

As you see, we already did. The fact that our networks are connected to your networks doesn't mean that you built our networks or that they belong to you.

--

Re:Monopoly(TM)

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So the U.S. didn't invent the web, but the U.S. did polish it up and turn it into something that was more generally useful.

So if the web was invented by a Brit, but it was obscure until the US polished it up, it's a US thing. However, if the Internet started out as a small network linking a few US military and academic sites together, and was obscure until the rest of the worldwide academic community picked up on it too, that's a US thing as well?

Re:WWW

[hyfe]

Wasn't this suppose to be the "WORLD Wide Web"? I think someone lost sight of what they were doing...

Yeah, but the question is; who lost sight? .. and the answer will most likely depend on where you live.

Either way, given the US's history on using government resources to spy on regular industry (Echelon Airbus etc) and general political climate, having any sort of essential infrastructure under sovereing US control scares the shit out of me. This is one place where the the world needs to take a proactive stance, utilize our common synergies and come up with a global market-leading solution. Nothign short of it will do!

Re:So basically.

[sofar]

Wow, you sure think this stuff is easy.

The big problem is that legally, nothing stops a US company from getting a court order restraint against ICANN in the future if a .eu domain name infringes on a US trademark.

Got an answer to that? anyone?

Re:Shit for shit

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Great idea - replace a reliable US-controlled registrar with a bureaucratic Eurotrash controlled registrar.

I can't decide whether you're a troll, a bigot, or if it's a feeble attempt at sarcasm.

Sure, when it comes to this matter, the U.S. government may be called controll freaks (although I find it completely justified and, besides, I haven't noticed any negative impact of the current policy so far), but replacing that control with the European bureaucracy and laziness, that is even worse!

If you haven't noticed, the Europeans are also putting up their separate Euro-GPS system. It seems quite clear that the rest of the world wants alternatives to US technologies, even if they work, they're efficient and/or well managed. That should tell you something of the level of trust other countries have in future US foreign policies.

Centralized Can Be GOOD

[zoomba]

There are instances where spreading control out between multiple groups can be a bad thing. Too many cooks and all that. When you're dealing with something so vital as The Internet is now, you don't necessarily want to turn it over to something like the UN, which is so full of infighting and maneuvering for power that simple decisions could take ages.

Yeah, ICANN is all about red tape, but then again all government-esque agencies are. Even the international ones... especially the international ones. It gets worse the more people are involved.

Many claim that it's not fair that the US maintains control of the root servers and the TLDs and so on... well, who invested a majority of the money that developed The Internet we know now? Who bought and installed and maintained those root servers? Yes, there were many simultaneous endeavours to invent brothers and sisters to the Internet, but well, the US kinda won out. Controlling the root servers and who can sell which TLD, to me, isn't really all that bad of a thing. It's one group, under one government ensuring smooth operation of arguably the most important computers in the world.

Fragmentation of DNS would be an absolutely horrible thing. You'd have sites available to some parts of the world, not available to the others, mismatches on records etc because you know if everyone wants to own their own root server, they probably won't sync up all that much (if at all)

Despite some shady dealings with TLD registrars, they've done their job reasonably well. Everything works, we've had relatively few problems overall.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:Centralized Can Be GOOD

[shmlco]

OTOH, one can see how countries certainly have legitimate security interests in making sure that no one can "shut them down". The U.S. doesn't want anyone able to disrupt them, and the same goes for, say, France, who doesn't want the U.S. to screw with them just because someone got in a huff.

Of course, if such things were THAT important, I guess the U.S. shouldn't have outsourced all of its heavy industry, production, call centers, and other essential infrastructure...

What Meddling?

[bill_mcgonigle]

several EU domain registries are preparing to build, test and install a system to prevent U.S. government meddling

I'm all for decentralization, if the synchronization can be worked out, but these guys sound like Eurocooks.

Can they cite any examples of 'U.S. Government Meddling' or are these just they guys who make a living complaining about Bush's belt buckles?

I rather suspect the current Commerce position is one of no-confidence in ICANN to prevent a cyber-attack on the DNS infrastructure. We don't have any data about this, but a sudden glimmer of competence from ICANN would be anomalous.

Fragmentation, here we come

[ka9dgx]

Well, if we're going to fragment the name space, lets at least be consistent about it. We'll get rid of all of the 3 letter TLDs (MIL, EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, INT, etc.) and put everything where it belongs, in a country. So slashdot.org becomes slashdot.org.us, like it should have been all along.

--Mike--

Re:I don't see a problem with the US controlling D

[lethalox]

I challenge you to find me an instance where the US government has forcibly via a court order removed a:

1 - Anti-War Site

2 - Site advocating equal right for gay people or any other group

The US may have freedom of speech issues, but not the extent of allowing the DNS System to be run by the UN. Just remember the UN Human Rights committee is chaired by who? Or what is state of free speech in China (I love all the chinese blogs we freedom in the title)?

Re:Opening up a new world of TLDs

[rednip]

Or maybe we could just stick to .usa?

The *official* USA domain is '.us', of course that is mostly redundant because '.gov' and '.mil' is only the relm of the US government. Personally, I like to see at least "france.gov" and "germany.mil" to be at least portal sites controled by their own governments.

Re:Shit for shit

[Anonymous Coward]

As a U.S. citizen, and reading from the article,

But what is most disturbing about Gallagher's presentation, is how it endlessly refers to the president. The first slide has a picture of George Bush. The second begins "Thanks to the president's policies, America's economy is strong". The next slide is "The president's broadband vision". The next slide leads with a quote from Bush and two pictures of him. And on and on it goes. There is barely a single slide that doesn't quote from the president.,

it's no wonder there's concern. Isn't this exactly the kind of posturing that U.S. citizens are so quick to criticize when it comes from other nations.

This may not speak to the DNS issue, but it certainly speaks to our tiny view of the world.

There is no "Official"

[karl.auerbach]

ICANN is no more the "official" authority over DNS than Coke is the "official" cola of the world. The US Dept of Commerce has no authority to designate ICANN (or IANA, a job that ICANN does under contract) as an "official" this or "official" that over the DNS or IP address space.

Any one can honor any DNS system they chose to select - that's part of the end-to-end principle of the net. Most of us English speakers vote with our feet for those name services that provide our familiar DNS name space. But those who don't speak English are beginning to vote with their feet to set up systems that are not so oriented towards English or subject to ICANN's pro-trademark, highly taxed regime, and highly privacy unfriendly regime.

Re:So basically.

[Conor Turton]

Yep...

US courts only have jurisdiction in the USA and US territories.

Tough luck.

In Theory

[V_Pundit]

I don't have anything against ICANN, but it seems to me that a decentralized system of root servers is right in line with the nature of the internet. I'm not sure how good or bad this would turn out to be compared to the current system, but in theory it seems to be consistent with the core ideas of the internet.

Re:In Theory

[KD5YPT]

While it may be the core idea of the internet, there still need to be a central system that assign an online identifications to individual system. The problem lies in the fact that someone could, by accident or intension, assign their own device to have the same name (two google.com, bad) or same IP (really, REALLY bad). A central system is therefore required to register who's allowed to use what IP and what name is connected to that one IP.

Doesn't the US want root servers of their own?

[QuickFox]

Why are so many Americans questioning the idea that Europe wants to have root servers of their own?

Just imagine that the roles were reversed. Just imagine that Europe owned all the root servers. You can bet the US would immediately decide to get their own root servers. You want to be independent.

How can this not be obvious? It's important infrastructure, and you don't want to be entirely at the mercy of foreign powers. What's wrong with that?

Why do so many Americans assume that everybody else is far less cocky than Americans are? This weird assumption has astonished me for years.

This assumption was especially perplexing before the Iraq war, when Americans assumed that Iraqi and other Muslims would be far more docile than Americans could ever be, that they would accept occupation and peace would be possible. Why assume that?

Americans would never accept foreign occupation, why assume that others would? Where do you get these strange ideas?

Fortunately, Europe and the US are friendly and have common goals. Even so, Europe wanting its own root servers is just as natural as the United States wanting their own if the roles were reversed.

Sheesh.

--

EU Constitution

[falconwolf]

People rejected a bad constitution, what is the problem with that?

...

A constitution should be made with a vision on what is desired, not as a consequence of repeated compromise.

A constitution should never even approach the 600+ pages the EU Constitution had. Two, three pages at most, like the Constitution of the USA!!! Once it's only a couple of pages then you can add a few more pages of amendments. I'm glad France shotr it down!!!

Falcon

Re:How was this drivel moderated informative ?

[nickco3]

but one does wish [Europe] were better friends in times of need. Instead, we got sour Chirac and soulless Schroeder. You will, I'm sure, excuse the bitterness.

Blair is a European, too, you know.