Slashdot Mirror


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?"

26 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Decentralization... by JossiRossi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I suspect that if this goes through it'll be a start to where the internet speads apart and out, someday entire seperate networks set up. Like "ChinaNet" instead of internet. I imagine the seediness of the internet could only go up... Not that I mind. =]

    --
    Just a boy doing unproffesional IT work that's way above his head.
  2. So basically. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So basically the EU is trying to tell ICANN UCANT?

    1. Re:So basically. by ADRA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Bye!
    2. Re:So basically. by sofar · · Score: 5, Insightful


      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?

    3. Re:So basically. by Conor+Turton · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yep...

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

      Tough luck.

      --
      Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
  3. WWW by Beuno · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    1. Re:WWW by hyfe · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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!

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    2. Re:WWW by eln · · Score: 4, Informative

      People laugh at this, but what you know as the "World Wide Web" was a term and a concept dreamt up by.... wait for it.... Al Gore.

      I don't know where you get your information, but the WWW, both the term and the concept, was developed by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in 1989. The Internet, of course, is far older than that. Gore came up with the term "information superhighway."

      You could make the argument that it was never intended to be under global control, but the Internet was a global network well before the World Wide Web came along.

    3. Re:WWW by nixkuroi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, WWW does equal World Wide Web and it was created by Tim Berners-Lee, an English guy. The WWW runs on the Internet and the Internet was created by the US government. It's a little like someone creating a road and then someone starting a cool bus service on it.

      The road owner (RO)is telling the bus service owner's (BSO's) that it is going to continue owning the road and the BSO's are getting pissed because they're afraid the RO is going to put in some traffic signals and road signs they don't like. So now the BSO's are threatening to create their own side roads with their own signs and signals.

      This kind of stuff happens whenever you create something that becomes a standard upon which people build other standards. People freak out when they think the infrastructure upon which their livlihoods are based is being messed with, especially by someone can't pronounce the word nuclear. :)

  4. And you thought Bush misspoke... by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Funny

    When President Bush referred to The Internets, many people thought he was mis-speaking. He was apparently foreshadowing a plan to make sure that Europe gets off our Internet and makes their own!

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
  5. Monopoly(TM) by lordsilence · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Monopoly(TM) by QuickFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    2. Re:Monopoly(TM) by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  6. Sounds Like Good News by mechsoph · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's hope they set up a good system that we all can use.

    I'm not really sure why everyone's so worked up about this. If the US Gov. doesn't run things right, we can all just point our resolvers at an alternate root, like this one. And considering the the US was just maintaining the status quo, it really seems like even less of a big deal.

    It looks like these guys are just gonna set up an alternate root for everyone and try to automate the system as much as possible. Hopefully it works.

    BTW, anybody else annoyed that all these news articles on this keep confusing DNS with "The Internet?"

  7. Suprize! by arrow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can set up automated systems and launch shared responsibility campaigns untill your blue in the face.

    The fact still remains that your shared trusted ultra 31337 root zone file won't actually be used.

    The operators of the root servers have stated time and time again that their job is to only serve the root zone, the contents of which is the responsibility of ICANN (and in turn the US government).

    This is just more "alternate root" quackery.

    --
    symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
  8. Decolonization... by Uzull · · Score: 3, Informative

    This process is called decolonization ... It started for the USA with the Boston tea party, wanting independency from UK. And now the registrars are doing with their own kind of tea party, building their own root server, and wanting independency from the US, although in a different and in a much more peacefull way.

  9. Re:Shit for shit by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  10. Centralized Can Be GOOD by zoomba · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Centralized Can Be GOOD by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's only centralised if you think the US is the centre of the world.

      And you should find out the real answer to your own question about who has put in most of the money to fund the Internet as it's developed today. When you've worked that out, you'll start to understand why so many people think the US government and its ICANN subsidiary don't deserve their de facto overlord status.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  11. What Meddling? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  12. Fragmentation, here we come by ka9dgx · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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--

    1. Re:Fragmentation, here we come by CptNerd · · Score: 4, Funny


      un.org.anized.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  13. Re:I don't see a problem with the US controlling D by lethalox · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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)?

  14. Lest we forget... by rich_r · · Score: 4, Informative

    The 'Internet' is a network of networks, and exists only because of the peering and routing agreements of those who own the networks.
    Therefore, to say the internet is 'owned' by anyone is a fallacy. Before people start getting jingoistic, no one country has a monopoly on the internet, just portions thereof. And since the protocols are open, it's not unreasonable to expect that if the US did start monkeying around with the DNS servers, then they would find their routes disappearing, leaving them with their very own intranet.
    Corporate interests being what they are, I doubt it would happen.

  15. Re:Opening up a new world of TLDs by rednip · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.
    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
  16. Re:Shit for shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.