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)

[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: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.

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: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.