Iraq TLD In Legal Limbo

tcd004 writes "FP Magazine is reporting that despite the fact that Iraq has been a sovereign nation for some 15 months its top-level Internet domain, .iq, has been in a legal limbo. Until now, ICANN has refused to hand over control of the TLD due to the nation's instability." From the article: "But one Baghdad political insider says that the imbroglio is likely to end 'imminently'--possibly by the time this magazine hits newsstands--with ICANN handing over .iq to the new government. It's unclear why ICANN may reverse its earlier decision, whether it be from mounting political pressure or a different position on the legitimacy of the new Iraqi regime. The organization refused repeated requests for comment. But officials affiliated with the Iraqi government indicate they expect the domain's return soon."

Comments

Sovereign nation?

[earthlingpink]

Iraq has been a "sovereign nation" for considerably longer than 15 months.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[thc69]

I believe they are referring to the current Iraqi government, not the land.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[earthlingpink]

Quite so. But in that case, the caption should have read "despite having its current government for 15 months." I'm not trying to be pedantic or anything, but the statement was just wrong.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

you are right

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Rocketship Underpant]

More accurately, they were a sovereign nation up until a few years ago, and they are now an occupied nation.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[slavemowgli]

If it's a sovereign nation, then why is it still occupied by the US military? Until all foreign troops withdraw from Iraq, it's neither a "sovereign country" nor "mission accomplished" nor anything like that.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq has been a "sovereign nation" for considerably longer than 15 months.

That fact that this was put in "Politics" should tell you all you need to know about the spin on this. This is Slashdot afterall, where "Bush = Monkey" gets 5+ insightful EVERY time.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[DenDave]

Well... they are occupied but I'd hardly consider the Republic of Iraq to be a nation.. there seems to be a lack of national binding qualities in day to day iraqi life...

Re:Sovereign nation?

[mdarksbane]

So Japan isn't sovereign either, then?

I get your point, but there are US troops in a lot more places than Iraq.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[operagost]

Lebanon has also not been a sovereign nation for 28 years, then. Thankfully, this seems to be changing-- slowly.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Rocketship Underpant]

True. You could consider the Arabs, Turkomans and Kurds to all be separate currently-not-sovereign nations. You could break down the Arab regions even more.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Lisandro]

This is Slashdot afterall, where "Bush = Monkey" gets 5+ insightful EVERY time.

    You say it like it's a bad thing...

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

If absolute accuracy is truly what you are going for then the statement is not "wrong". It may be a subset of the truth but that makes it no less accurate. Additional accurate statements would be:

"Iraq has been a sovereign nation for some 15 years."

"Iraq has been a sovereign nation for a month."

If the statement had read "Iraq has been a sovereign nation for only 15 months." that would have been inaccurate.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Lussarn]

This is Slashdot afterall, where "Bush = Monkey" gets 5+ insightful EVERY time.

Anything more elaborate and Bush wouldn't understand what you where talking about.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[anaesthetica]

In a technical legalistic sense, it always was a sovereign nation, it just depended on who held the sovereignty. Saddam did, and then the U.S. military did, and then they handed over sovereignty to the Iraqi government, and the U.S. military remains there at the request of the Iraqi government. That's the de jure explanation, while we all know that the de facto explanation is that the U.S. military still calls a lot of the shots.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[hackstraw]

If it's a sovereign nation, then why is it still occupied by the US military? Until all foreign troops withdraw from Iraq, it's neither a "sovereign country" nor "mission accomplished" nor anything like that.

Sovereignty is a process. Processes take time.

Or at least that's what I've heard.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[agurkan]

Ask yourself this question. Could the "government" of Iraq function as it does now, e.g., holding those meetings for the new constitution requirements if there were not any US troops there? Then ask the similar question for Japan, Turkey, Germany etc. It is the function of the troops, not merely their presence which defines sovereignity. But I can also accept the argument that the presence of foreign troops hurt the sovereignity of a nation to some degree in any case.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Fishstick]

Didn't the Soviets do the same kind of thing in Afghanistan?

They invaded, replaced the government, which then 'invited' them to stay to 'provide security'.

*what was that movie about a Soviet tank crew in Afghanistan? Seem to remember one of the Baldwins in that but can't recall the title.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[akzeac]

I believe they are referring to the current Iraqi government

In that case, shouldn't it be .iq.us?

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Your Pal Dave]

I'm a monkey, you insensitive clod!

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Curien]

So, um... Germany's not sovereign?

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Beast of War

Re:Sovereign nation?

[StarvingSE]

Bush bad! Mod parent insightful :-)

Re:Sovereign nation?

[SnowZero]

Sure, but was the "new" Afghan government elected? I feel the elections made a big difference in terms of legitamacy.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Dogtanian]

This is Slashdot afterall, where "Bush = Monkey" gets 5+ insightful EVERY time.

Is Bush an object or a primitive?

If Bush is an object, then using Java-like handling, this means that people wishing to talk to Bush will end up talking to a monkey instead.

If Bush is a primitive, does this mean he is actually tranmogrified into a monkey?

Seriously, I really want to know.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[-brazil-]

It would be really hard to paint the German government as "a puppet governement controlled from Washington DC", considering how openly it opposed the Iraq invasion.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Fishstick]

true -- the Soviet-installed government was not democratically elected, and I'm not sure that the military ever really handed over legitimate soverign rule in any case. The way the gp was phrased struck me as parallel is all.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[neomac]

Or Korea?
Or Saudi Arabia?
Or Germany?
Or Louisiana?

The presence of US troops does not constitute an "occupation," whereas the democratic election of a government is reasonable justification for declaring Iraq a "sovereign nation."

Re:Sovereign nation?

[w3woody]

By that metric, both Germany and Japan are still occupied nations, as both still house troops from the United States that were originally sent there during World War II.

Hell, Japan's Constitution, which the United States had a significant hand in rewriting, prohibits Japan from raising an army--effectively renouncing it's sovereign right to self defense and turning that right over to the United States. So one could effectively argue that Japan will never not be an occupied power so long as Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is in effect.

So by your metric, Japan is not now, nor will ever be, a sovereign nation.

As to Germany, we have some 64,000 combat personnel stationed there, including 50,000 army units--not counting support folks--which is roughly half of the number of troops stationed in Iraq. To put it another way, our post World War II occupation force in Germany now stands at roughly half of our post Iraq War occupation force--which is a considerable occupation force given that Germany has now been "occupied" by your metric for roughly 60 years. (Source: DefenseLink)

Should ICANN confiscate the .jp and .de TLDs given that Germany and Japan have been occupied (and not sovereign) nations for around 60 years?

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Rei]

So Japan isn't sovereign either, then?

Japan is occupied(4) by the US? Funny - I thought that the current US presence in Japan was agreed upon by a mutually negotiated treaty with the elected Japanese government in the 1960s, well after occupation, and played no part in the day to day operation of, and local policing of, the country.

Silly me.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[iminplaya]

Britain, Russia, and China are the closest thing to a sovereign nation on the planet at the moment. Even that's in doubt with the way the world is being controlled by "trans-nationals". Sovereignty is a quaint term used by 18th and 19th Century thinkers. It really doesn't exist.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[anaesthetica]

Yeah, basically the same deal. Only the Afghans bled the Soviets to death with aid from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China. We've had very minor consequences in comparison.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

But best oxymoron ever- they can't come to agreement about a Constitution that makes everybody happy, but their TLD is .iq.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[fbjon]

Where can I go to register www.test.iq?

Re:Sovereign nation?

[CRCulver]

Hell, Japan's Constitution, which the United States had a significant hand in rewriting, prohibits Japan from raising an army--effectively renouncing it's sovereign right to self defense and turning that right over to the United States.

Japanese law provides for the creation of limited armed forces for the sake of self-defence. That's why their "army" is called the Self Defense Force (SDF). They are in no way dependent on the US.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[honor, not armor]

"That's the de jure explanation"

I think you mean du jour.

/nitpick

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that was an attempt at Funny mod points! But just in case it wasn't:

"de jure" means "according to the law", in contrast with "de facto" -- "according to fact".

"du jour", means "of the day", hence it's usage for soup specials.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[DirePickle]

Bush = Monkey

Re:Sovereign nation?

[elemental23]

Louisiana is a city, not a nation.

HTH!

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Jeff Hornby]

Ummmm....

Louisiana is a state.

I know that and I'm not even American.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even American.

Lucky bastard!

Re:Sovereign nation?

[oldwarrior]

or .un since the current occupation is fully supported by a UN resolution now unlike the period immediately following the war.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[dodobh]

Why are you insulting the monkeys?

Re:Sovereign nation?

[anaesthetica]

De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "based on law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "in fact".

The Latin de jure should not be confused with the French du jour which translates to "of the day", as, for example, in soupe du jour.

I did mean "de jure," not "du jour". Wikipedia is your friend.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[elemental23]

Jesus Christ, doesn't anyone follow links anymore?

I know, I know, I must be new here...

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Citizen of Earth]

More accurately, they were a sovereign nation up until a few years ago, and they are now an occupied nation.

No, the invasion took about four weeks; the occupation ended earlier this year; and Iraq is now a sovereign nation again with a democratically elected interim government. This may be an unfortunate thing, considering that successful transformations in the past required occupations of five years or more and that lots of "Islamic Revolution in Iraq" types are elected to government. Lots of voters really are stupid enough to inflict a theocratic dictatorship upon themselves.

But anyway, there are lots of unstable bullshit countries that have control of their own Internet domain name, hundreds of them. The .iq domain should have been in control of those in power at all times. The UN, et al. always give sovereign authority to whatever bullshit junta takes over whatever country (the main problem with the world today), and Iraq should not be denied the privileges of these more-bullshit countries.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Citizen of Earth]

So by your metric, Japan is not now, nor will ever be, a sovereign nation.

One could also argue that in a virtual self-selected way, Canada is in the same situation as Japan. Canada doesn't need an army large enough to defend itself from an aggressive military invasion by a massive enemy since the US effectively takes on the role of protecting it.

In any case, claiming that Iraq is illegitimate while holding that a hundred more-bullshit dictatorship countries are legitimate is hypocrisy.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but what rock have you been living under? The occupation is nowhere near ended, why do you think Bush announced a four year extention with 100,000+ troops? I'll tell you one thing, it wasn't for the herbal tea.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Citizen of Earth]

I'm sorry, but what rock have you been living under? The occupation is nowhere near ended, why do you think Bush announced a four year extention with 100,000+ troops?

It is because the democratically elected interim government has requested that the US troops stay there. The Iraqi government is quite well aware that if the US troops were to leave tomorrow, the terrorist insurgency would grow to full civil war and the elected government would be overthrown. This is simply a matter of the Iraqi government not being entirely insane.

So, the US troops are needed (in fact, probably 3-5x the number are needed) until Iraq has an indiginous army large enough to defend its government and defeat the insurgents.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[tjstork]

Japan's "Self Defense Force" is said to be the third most capable military in the world.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[node 3]

In a technical legalistic sense, it always was a sovereign nation, it just depended on who held the sovereignty.

Sovereignty refers to the country ruling itself, and not being ruled from afar or by another power.

Don't worry, the President had the same problem you have. When asked about tribal (Native American) sovereignty in the 21st century, he replied, "Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a ... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."

Re:Sovereign nation?

[VagaStorm]

I you had followed the link you would have read the following: > :p

Re:Sovereign nation?

[d34thm0nk3y]

That fact that this was put in "Politics" should tell you all you need to know about the spin on this. This is Slashdot afterall, where "Bush = Monkey" gets 5+ insightful EVERY time.

I for one am outraged!!! That should be +5 informative damnit!

Re:Sovereign nation?

[anaesthetica]

Actually, sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. The U.S. certainly did exercise sovereignty over Iraq from the invasion through to the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi government. You can't say that Iraq had no sovereign during the invasion and occupation, because the U.S. was the sovereign.

The word can be used to refer to a government's capacity to control its own affairs, but that's a more limited and specific usage.

Buy a dictionary.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[node 3]

The word can be used to refer to a government's capacity to control its own affairs, but that's a more limited and specific usage.

Which is exactly the usage of the word we are talking about in this thread. Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?

Right now, the US holds sovereignty over Iraq. That obviously precludes Iraq from being sovereign, doesn't it? So when you said, "In a technical legalistic sense, it always was a sovereign nation," you were absolutely wrong.

Buy a dictionary.

Don't need to, I already have multiple, and I've checked one. Have you?

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are staying, then US soldiers should be charged for their crimes and for breaking (both international and Iraq's) laws when invading free country.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Citizen of Earth]

If they are staying, then US soldiers should be charged for their crimes and for breaking (both international and Iraq's) laws when invading free country.

And Saddam should have been executed for invading Kuwait. And every bullshit dictator in the world should be invaded, overthrown, and executed for crimes against humanity.

I find it quite bizarre that people who rabidly criticize the US for overthrowing a dictator fail to recognize that the bullshit juntas around the world have absolutely no legitimacy to represent their people or claim the protection of sovereignty, including Saddam. Iraq was not exactly "free". Perhaps Sean Penn sums up your argument best:

"Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles."

Re:Sovereign nation?

[msuarezalvarez]

I find it quite bizarre that people who rabidly criticize the US for overthrowing a dictator fail to recognize that the bullshit juntas around the world have absolutely no legitimacy to represent their people or claim the protection of sovereignty, including Saddam.

Those are two different things.

You are correct in saying that most of those juntas have absolutely no legitimacy. That is quite orthogonal to the fact that the US has absolutely no legitimacy in overthrowing dictators.

One can find those juntas abject and at the same time reject the notion of letting the US do regime changing as they see fit, without incurring in no bizarre contradiction whatsoever.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, shouldn't it be .iq.us?

First time I've ever seen IQ used in the same sentence as US... ;)

Re:Sovereign nation?

[JoshWurzel]

Ahem. I'd like to disprove that theory.

Bush = Monkey

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Handpaper]

*what was that movie about a Soviet tank crew in Afghanistan? Seem to remember one of the Baldwins in that but can't recall the title.

It's called The Beast Of War and is indeed very good.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[mollusk]

as both still house troops from the United States that were originally sent there during World War II.

And I thought the extended tours of duty in Iraq were bad....

Where does one get khaki Depends anyways?

Re:Sovereign nation?

[NutscrapeSucks]

> By that metric, both Germany and Japan are still occupied nations

Germany was technically under occupation until reunification in 1992 or so.

Japan left legal occupation significantly eariler, and could change their constitution if they wanted to (Article 96), although apparently there's significant popular support for the peace provision.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[Jeff Hornby]

oops, sorry. my bad.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[SnowZero]

Only time will tell whether we gave the Iraqis the gift of freedom or replaced hardship with hell (civil war). Here's to hoping it is the former, but it certainly seems like it was an unwise gamble.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[bhiestand]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Seriously, who says that?

Re:Sovereign nation?

[bhiestand]

The french integrated those into their combat uniforms a long time ago.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[tjstork]

Well, Wikipedia says they have the 5th largest defense budget in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Fo rces

And a Japanse professor

http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Ias/Occupa tionJapanRearmament.asp

Re:Sovereign nation?

[mdarksbane]

Yes, a government elected under a constitution largely written by the US, which specifically forbids military build up? And these troups are apparently quite unpopular with much of the populace? I was also under the impression that the newly elected government of Iraq did not particularly want to kick the US troups out immediately, either.

Japan is probably the best example of where the US administrators are HOPING Iraq will end up. I doubt it'll happen, but it's still worth some sort of comparison.

I was merely pointing out that the presence of US troups does not necessarily imply a lack of sovereignty, just a lack of adequate military force internally.

Re:Sovereign nation?

[bhiestand]

Well, Wikipedia says they have the 5th largest defense budget in the world.

Sure, they have good defenses. I wouldn't be surprised if most of that money went into missile defenses, because that's probably their biggest future problem. This is aside from their huge sums of money that every developed country has to spend on salary/medical care/etc. for their troops.

Your source being a Japanese professor... Well, that settles it all. I remember some korean professors telling me that Japan stole their language from them, etc.

Anyways, back to figures again. Japan is probably the third most SECURE country on the planet. The overwhelming american military presence, combined with their location and high-tech military means it'd take one hell of a military to be able to actually invade the country.

But in terms of having a powerful military, not so much. I'd say America clearly has the most powerful military right now, Russia may still be second (they still have a lot of skilled troops and a ton of great equipment, they're just low on funding to fix it up and put diesel in it. That could change VERY quickly) but North Korea, China, and Israel all have extremely powerful militaries as well. And by extremely powerful, I mean they really could obliterate damned near any country not on this list. This is also ignoring Britain and Canada. People may laugh when I mention Canada, but their military is quite well equipped and very well trained. It's a small military, but extremely capable. And that means very powerful. I wouldn't want to fuck with them if I were most other countries.

this is why...

[Foobar of Borg]

Yes, this is why our troops are still there. Because Iraq does not have a top-level Internet domain. Why, oh why, don't they have a top-level Internet domain? Is clean water really that important?

Re:this is why...

[mwvdlee]

Just because a top-level domain isn't nearly as important as things such as clean water, doesn't mean it's completely unimporant.

Re:this is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hrrmm.. I think there's a UN scandal brewing here...

====

I was referred to whois.nic.iq; I'm looking it up there.

Registrant:
      Kojo Anaan
      Registered through: saddam.iq
      Domain Name: OILFORFOOD.IQ
      Domain servers in listed order:
            NS.kojoproductions.iq
      For complete domain details go to:
      http://whois.saddam.iq/

[If E-mail address(es) were hidden on this page, you can click here to get the results with the E-mail address].

========

(joke)

Re:this is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your troops aren't there because they want to provide clean water to the people of Iraq. U.S. troops remain in the country because of your countries greed including your politicians, corporations and general population.

Sure, mod me troll, but before you do just think back. Do you remember the justification for invading in the first place, those little white lies about WMDs? The debacle that was that war, and the ongoing embarrasment we see on the news every day still?

I know it's not as straight forward as all that, but the greater motivation for a military (read American military) presence in Iraq is not for aid, but because your nation has ulterior motives and probably a small desire to have a wee bit of control over some of the largest oil fields left on this Earth.

Re:this is why...

[Nuclear Elephant]

Just because a top-level domain isn't nearly as important as things such as clean water

I was thinking more along the lines that you need to have pr0n available online before you can have your own TLD.

Re:this is why...

[operagost]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050 825/wl_mideast_afp/iraqenvironmentwater_0508251810 06

Iraqi insurgents have regularly targeted water installations.

In June and July they bombed a Baghdad water pipeline, cutting off supplies to half the city, a purification station and a pumping station.

According to UN figures, 97 percent of the capital's inhabitants have running water, but only 63 percent get it on a regular basis.

Rashid's timeframe for "adequate" water supply is considerably shorter than a recent one given by US General Thomas Bostick, who said in June that it would take two billion dollars a year for 12 years "to fix the water situation in Iraq, to get clean water to 100 percent of Iraqis".

Rashid acknowledged that water supply is competing with other national priorities for budget allocations and resources but said "the Iraqi people are determined" to solve the problem.

Most of Iraq's water system is half a century old. Maintenance was therefore an "an extremely important part" of his ministry's efforts, he said.

According to US army engineers, some 60 percent of drinkable water in Iraq is lost between treatment and delivery, mostly through hundreds of thousands of leaks in pipelines due to old age.

Under former leader Saddam Hussein, the system was neglected as resources were diverted to the war effort and to fighting insurgencies.

One legacy of that era, the draining of 20,000 square kilometres (7,722 square miles) of marshland in southwestern Iraq, was being reversed, Rashid said.

After Shiite insurgents fled to the marshes from Saddam Hussein's artillery, the president in 1993 ordered the area to be drained, turning the wetlands into a desert.

"It was a crime against nature and humanity," Rashid said.

Re:this is why...

[Foobar of Borg]

For crying out loud, I was just making a frigging joke! Jeez, it looks like the mods are not on the right pills. Perhaps we should execute their trainer :-).

Re:this is why...

[CyricZ]

Jokes have to be funny. That is, they must make people laugh.

Re:this is why...

[Foobar of Borg]

Then perhaps you should go out and buy yourself a sense of humor instead of taking everything so damn seriously.

Re:this is why...

[Rei]

Under former leader Saddam Hussein, the system was neglected as resources were diverted to the war effort and to fighting insurgencies

Yeah, that's why it fell apart.

Re:this is why...

[CyricZ]

Then we are in agreement. Your joke was not funny. Good day, sir.

Re:this is why...

[Rei]

Is it really wise to turn it over? I mean, everyone is angry (with justification) for 2-3 B$ in kickbacks to Saddam over a decade via Oil For Food (note: not 10-20B - that includes smuggling, which was not related to the 661 (Oil For Food) committee). However, the Iraqi Oil and Defense ministries, largely headed by US administrators, Chalabi and Pals, SCIRI thugs, et al, hemorrhaged 8.8B$ in 14 months ((2) (3). You know, doing things like paying the salaries of 602 guards as 8,250 guards. Enron would have loved these people.

Are these *really* people we want to entrust yet *another* service to? I mean, seriously, that's worse than Nigeria - half the government's entire budget went to embezzling.

Re:this is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

No oil = no transportation
No oil = no medicine = everyone with a chronic illness dies.

Blood for oil, yeah, no oil and the blood of millions of dead diabetics, epileptics, heart patients will be on the hands of those that let the oil run out.

Bribe them!

[alexandreracine]

You need to bribe ICANN to get the domain you want :) That way, they are stable.

Instabillity My ass

[scenestar]

ICANN is using Iraq's political mess as an excuse.

We all know they just want to sell the tld to the highest bidder so it could be used by organizations such as mensa.

Re:Instabillity My ass

[roach2002]

Would someone please tell me why this was modded "Interesting" and "Insightful" instead of funny?

Cause it's the funniest post I see on this thread.

Re:Instabillity My ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Because typical members of Mensa are unemployed bums living with and off their retired parents.

Re:The most sought after Iraqi domains...

[Zocalo]

Given the current situation in Iraq I think it's actually more likely to be "fanat.iq"...

WTF?

[SatanicPuppy]

How can a country be too unstable to use a TLD? Is the TLD going to run amok, strap some viruses around itself and nuke some other unsuspecting nearby TLD like .kw or .ae?

Sounds idiotic to me. Or, more likely, like some country doesn't want Iraquis to be able to express their opinions attached to the official domain of the country.

Re:WTF?

[Dr. Evil]

Okay, you're sitting in your office one day, and you see on CNN that Iraq's government has collapsed.

Some guy calls you up and says "I'm important, please sign over control over the .iq domain to me"

What do you do?

Re:WTF?

[Kierthos]

Tell him, "Fred, quit fucking around and get back to work."

Kierthos

Re:WTF?

[SatanicPuppy]

Yea, that flies two years ago, but they've got a democraticly elected government now, or so we keep saying.

What possible reason can we have that justifies holding out control of something like that? If they can't handle a TLD, then they've got serious problems.

Re:WTF?

[m50d]

There's no clear legitimate government, they've just been invaded, have they even got a constitution yet? Who should have the TLD? Better ICANN holds it for the moment than giving it to the occupying US forces, who are the only candidate for the current government of iraq.

Re:WTF?

[operagost]

Um, where have you been? The USA invaded in 2003. It is now 2005, and the Iraqi Provisional Government has been in authority for over a year. A national assembly was elected by the Iraqi people in January to draft a new constitution, which is close to being voted on.

Re:WTF?

[Dr. Evil]

Umm... They do have serious problems :-)

It takes a while for buracracies to do anything, much less set up peripheral offices like this.

I think what it would take is a big telecom provider in Iraq to approach the appropriate office of the government and say "hey, we need to use .iq". Establishing the appropriate office and letting people know about it, might just take that long.

Re:WTF?

[m50d]

The USA invaded in 2003. It is now 2005,

Point, but AIUI there's still ongoing violence.and the Iraqi Provisional Government has been in authority for over a year. A national assembly was elected by the Iraqi people in January to draft a new constitution, which is close to being voted on.

How did that government get authority without the country having a constitution? Anyway, the lack of a constitution shows that the country's not yet fully functioning governmentally. Yes it's getting there, and I'd say once they have the constitution and elections under it then the new government can take control of the domain, but it's not there yet.

Re:WTF?

[ScentCone]

there's still ongoing violence

So, should we de-register any New Orleans city-related domains until that mayor and his state's governor can figure which of them works for who under what authority? That seems to be a somewhat contested issue at the moment. You could also say that the Sudan, or Lebannon don't deserve their own TLDs. Or how about the "stans" that operate essentially without any meaningful constitutional democracy. For that matter, what about China? Would you consider that oppressive, totalitarian regime the ideal owner of an enormously busy hunk of the internet's address space?

How did that government get authority without the country having a constitution?

By having representatives of a range of regional and ethnic groups get together and approve a provisional foundation under which they would operate. You do realize it took years for the US to draft and ratify its own constitution, right?

Re:WTF?

[fbjon]

But, is there any authority in Iraq that can handle this? Has any entity stepped up and said, "We are able to take care of it now, please."?

Re:WTF?

[ScentCone]

But, is there any authority in Iraq that can handle this?

Just because Iraq can't handle every detail of everything they're tackling, and need a lot of international support, doesn't mean they shouldn't be assigned the authority to do so. For example - USAID is helping their Ministry of Communications with an enormous task: getting the local telecom infrastructure up to date. That seems like a natural channel through which to tackle domain admin, even if it's with some help for a while. For some comments on how much fiber and whatnot they've been stringing up, see here, just as an example.

Re:WTF?

[hurfy]

I am getting terribly curious as to what there is to take care of? I suppose there must be more to it than some gov't dudes writing a contract with network solutions or whoever that currently hands out names for others to make a fuss. If so, what?

Re:WTF?

[m50d]

So, should we de-register any New Orleans city-related domains

It's not as if the domains were taken away from someone who was running them properly. The .iq domain was (presumably) run by the Hussein government, which doesn't exist any more. Until a clear replacement arises, it makes sense for ICANN to keep them.

until that mayor and his state's governor can figure which of them works for who under what authority? That seems to be a somewhat contested issue at the moment.

The laws are there, there's no real prospect of any change in government or anything like that. You can't compare the situation there with what's going on in Iraq, it's a genuine warzone.

You could also say that the Sudan, or Lebannon don't deserve their own TLDs. Or how about the "stans" that operate essentially without any meaningful constitutional democracy.

They have well established governments, pretty solidly in power, normal diplomatic relations with just about everyone, UN membership etc. Democracy isn't a requirement to have an internet domain, but a recognised government is.

For that matter, what about China? Would you consider that oppressive, totalitarian regime the ideal owner of an enormously busy hunk of the internet's address space?

It's enormously busy becuase there are so many servers under that government, it's their own names. Anyway, yes, for the same reason, China's government is pretty much undisputed. Yes, there are rebels, but there don't seem to be real challengers - is there any real prospect of, say, the Republic of China government gaining control of the country in the near future? Wheras it seems to me there's a real prospect of any number of groups that could be ruling Iraq pretty soon. When the government that was running a TLD falls, ICANN looks after it until there's a new government that is the recognised ruler of the country. Not perfect, but what's the alternative - gun battles over a server farm for the propaganda victory controlling the country's domain would be? Two conflicting DNSes for a country so users have to decide whether their browsers are supporting the loyalists or the revolutionaries, and hope that a militant group doesn't check your hosts file and shoot you for picking the wrong one?

Re:WTF?

[fbjon]

I'm thinking of naming responsibilities, like not having the entire namespace sold out to the porn industry for cash. Maybe something else? I don't know, but they seem to be thinking about something!

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

What serious problem? An occupying army serving the country to greedy mega corporations instead of helping their peers deal with disaster in NO is a serious problem? Please, explain...

Re:WTF?

[fbjon]

Point taken.

Re:WTF?

[Citizen of Earth]

By having representatives of a range of regional and ethnic groups get together and approve a provisional foundation under which they would operate. You do realize it took years for the US to draft and ratify its own constitution, right?

Perhaps the parent was saying that all countries need to remain in perpetual vacuum because without a constitution, a government has no authority to create a constitution.

Re:WTF?

[operagost]

How did that government get authority without the country having a constitution?

That's funny, the USA started off without one for serveral years. Then the nation adopted a lousy one for a while before starting over in 1787.

Huh???

[Anonymous Coward]

"has been a sovereign nation for some 15 months"

15 months? Isn't time for Slashdot to stop accepting submissions form idiots?

Re:Huh???

[bedroll]

15 months? Isn't time for Slashdot to stop accepting submissions form idiots?

Would those be the ones who don't use preview and proofread their posts?

Article wrong?

[thc69]

According to http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-28jul05.htm :

Resolved (05.70) that the proposed redelegation of the .IQ ccTLD to the National Communications and Media Commission (NCMC) of Iraq is approved.

Re:Perspective...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

This is a tech news site. If you want the "Hard" news about the cleanup after Katrina or the problems in Iraq, news.google.com has a bunch of nice links. You can also go to the website of CNN, MSNBC, or the BBC for information on the less tech news out there.

First dibs on low.iq!

[Domini]

I'm sure this will be taken pretty quick. ;)

Re:First dibs on low.iq!

[Fastball]

Dibs on goatse.iq. Wonder how that would go over in the Muslim world... *clicks Cancel and thinks it over*

Re:First dibs on low.iq!

[sabernet]

The sad thing is, and trust me, I work at a registrar as tech support, that once a TLD is approved, only the big shot corporate companies(those with a few thousand domains already and up) get first pick. End users only get their hands in sometimes years after all the god ones are picked up by the likes of HP, MS, IBM, Oracle, etc....

Re:First dibs on low.iq!

[sabernet]

ummm, that would be good ones, not god ones ^^;

Gimme a break

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unclear why ICANN may reverse its earlier decision, whether it be from mounting political pressure or a different position on the legitimacy of the new Iraqi regime.

ASSOCIATED PRESS
5:48 p.m. February 1, 2005

UNITED NATIONS - Abandoning diplomatic circumspection, the top U.N. electoral expert on Tuesday praised the vote in Iraq as one of the most moving she had ever seen.

Carina Perelli, who has helped advise on dozens of elections from East Timor to the Palestinian territories, called the Jan. 30 election a "dignified, peaceful demonstration" of Iraqis' will.

About 40 people were killed but she told a news conference it had been a feat that no polling station was closed for the day because of security fears.

"I have participated in many elections in my life and I usually say that the day you lose your ability to be moved by people going to vote, you should change your career," said Perelli, who had insisted for months that U.N. advisers would leave pronouncements on the election to Iraq's electoral commission. "This was probably one of the most moving elections I have ever seen."

Perelli said she knew the process was going well when she was given a report on election day that there were long lines at polling stations in Mosul, a city that has seen some of the worst violence in Iraq recently.

"It is, I think, a message for all of us that beyond our discussions, beyond our diagnosis, beyond our expertise, normal people have something to say about their destiny," she said of the vote. "In that sense, I think it was an extremely moving and good election."

http://sosdmail.com/news/world/iraq/20050201-1748- un-iraq-elections.html

51st State

[StarTideRising]

Perhaps they're waiting to see if the name gets changed in the next few months. It'd be embarrasing to release the TLD .iq if it should instead be iq.us

Re:51st State

[Marc2k]

Maybe they'll call it New New Jersey. That seems about right.

Re:51st State

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear New Orleans is up for grabs...

Re:51st State

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Gad, man! Do you realize that you've suddenly solved the problem of where to put the New Orleans refugees?

After all, my newspaper just informed me today that 126 hurricane refugees showed up in my city, Toledo ... which already has many 1000s of poor Blacks. It only stands to reason that the Bush Administration is probably seriously thinking about moving refugees to another poor area under US control with a dark-skinned population ... hence Iraq.

BRILLIANT! As the OP said, the TLD for Iraq should be *.iq.us. Anything else just wouldn't be honest.

Re:51st State

[lowrydr310]

I always wonder what happened to Original Jersey or the Old Jersey. Seriously, what is the original Jersey that New Jersey replaced or updated?

PS - I'm a "new" NJ resident

Re:51st State

[beady]

Something I can speak in relative experience on for once!
Jersey is one of the Channel Islands, which are a group of islands in the English Channel, more or less.
Jersey is the largest island of the group, followed by Guernsey (where I am from), and then Alderney (where I was born), and then some other smaller islands, such as Sark and Herm.
I'm sure wikipedia has plenty of information if you actually want to look. It must be said, it is refreshing to see a New Jersey resident even consider the existence of the "old" Jersey.

Re:51st State

[eggegg]

It only stands to reason that the Bush Administration is probably seriously thinking about moving refugees to another poor area under US control with a dark-skinned population ... hence Iraq.

You do know Iraqis are rather fair skinned, don't you? Aryan ancestry and all that. Nice try, though.

Re:51st State

[Anonymous Coward]

Wild guess: The UK?

Re:51st State

[ScentCone]

it is refreshing to see a New Jersey resident even consider the existence of the "old" Jersey

Hell, it's refreshing to see the words "New Jersey" and "consider" in the same sentence at all!

Re:51st State

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know Iraqis are rather fair skinned, don't you? Aryan ancestry and all that. Nice try, though.

Darker than European Pink means dark, and therefor fair game for George W. Bush's murderous excesses, aryan ancestory or not.

Re:51st State

[3247]

Quite close, but not exactly right.

Re:51st State

[Darby]

Jersey is one of the Channel Islands, which are a group of islands in the English Channel, more or less.

Look everybody, don't believe a word he says.

In the first place the channel islands are off the coast of Santa Barbara, California.

Further, Jersey and Guernsey are breeds of cattle rather than islands as the OP claims.

Sheesh, he even goes as far as to claim that he was born on a cow ;-)

Re:51st State

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Perhaps I should have made it clear that if Jesus was standing on a street corner in one of Toledo's more affluent neighborhoods, he'd be jacked up. "Rather" fair skin means DARK skin, any way you cut it for the New Racism of today.

If I had received a dime for each time I heard the phrase "sand nigger" around here, I'd be able to afford to move to a REAL civilization (like Switzerland).

So much for Aryan ancestry. The local yokels who poured into recruiter offices across Ohio hardly know such distinctions.

Re:Perspective...

[gowen]

This is a tech news site

For very small values of "News". It's really a Tech Trivia site.

Re:Perspective...

[Kierthos]

Right, because there are no other online news sources with anything on Katrina/NOLA or Iraq. Because cnn.com, headlinenews.com, msnbc.com, etc. just don't exist any more.

Because when I think about news stories that might have a significant non-geek factor, the first news site that pops to mind is slashdot.

Get a little perspective. I don't like the stories about any flavour of BSD, but I don't bitch about it when they post them on the front page.

Kierthos

Wait for the rush...

[sznupi]

/me puts helmet while the ones racing for test.iq pass him (wonder what that tells about their intelligence... ;) )

Article right

[technoextreme]

The article says it might be resolved by the time people read this. I guess it was right. Now what do we talk about.

Re:Article right

[RoboRay]

It was resolved six weeks before this article was posted on /.!

FP Magazine?

[lou2ser]

"FP Magazine is reporting that despite the fact that Iraq has been a sovereign nation for some 15 months its top-level Internet domain, .iq, has been in a legal limbo. "

Since when is there a First Post Magazine?

Re:FP Magazine?

[dr_dank]

Since when is there a First Post Magazine?

Something had to take its place when Hot Grits Monthly ceased publishing.

Re:FP Magazine?

[Dogtanian]

> > Since when is there a First Post Magazine?

> Something had to take its place when Hot Grits Monthly ceased publishing.

'Hot Grits Monthly' is still available in Soviet Russia and Korea (although it's only popular with old people there).

Re:The most sought after Iraqi domains...

[Anonymous Coward]

The most sought after Iraqi domains... (Score:1, Flamebait)
by Beautyon (214567) on Thursday September 08, @10:43AM (#13509299)
(http://www.cafepress.com/irdial.13697382)

are bound to be:

high.iq and low.iq

The latter being reserved by the installed govt for W.

Heh!

Somebody had to laugh at your lame and pathetic joke, even if it was you.

Political intrigue?

[burtdub]

I don't buy that the computer people are privy to inside political gossip. The computer people are always the last to know... even after the janitors.

The "insider information" is probably that U.S. troops are planning some kind of an invasion, and even that is probably referencing Bush I.

Great Marketing idea for these people:

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

Testing people

When Iraq gets their domain back, they can sell names to people like the above. Or people who want .IQ in there domain names.

Ex: smartbrat.IQ

Re:Great Marketing idea for these people:

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been waiting for these:

ithinkimgonnabes.iq
icantfindmyguitarp.iq
and
yesidohavethebiggestd...

Re:Great Marketing idea for these people:

[assassinator42]

They could do like Tokelau and just give them away to anyone. Although, I doubt they'd do that.

the new Iraqi regime?

[Krojack]

the new Iraqi regime

eh? Isn't that was was thrown out?

.limbo

[Doc Ruby]

The entire country is in "legal limbo". One little invasion can ruin an entire legal system. And then leave a vacuum where the country should be, for years.

Just this week, the Iraq Constitution talks collapsed. That can delay legal niceties like domain names, and even smaller details like ending the civil war.

Re:.limbo

[TrappedByMyself]

One little invasion can ruin an entire legal system. And then leave a vacuum where the country should be, for years.
 
Yeah, things were much better when the legal system was the torture and execution of anyone who looked at the leadership funny.
 
Not making excuses for the war, but just want to be sure we don't use our political leanings to twist the truth.

Re:.limbo

[Doc Ruby]

Why are you still clinging to Saddam Hussein's now long-gone country? Iraq is America now, has been for years, and will be until we let it go. "Not as bad as Saddam" isn't good enough for me, why is it good enough for you? I note that, while we truly are "not as bad as Saddam", our occupation is, in fact, torturing and executing many people who have nothing to do with any opposition to the rebirth of that country. Or at least didn't, before we tortured and killed them and their families without justification.

I stated the simple facts: we invaded, we ruined a legal system (which did have nearly-irrelevant redeeming functions like maintaining their Internet presence), and have left a vacuum, rather than a country. Until this week, political leanings twisted the truth with visions of a constitution that would end the civil war. Now that the constitution has collapsed, those twists are just lies.

Let's leave "our political leanings" for when something debatable is under discussion. To quote Colin Powell: "if we break it, we own it". Iraq was severly dysfunctional before we invaded. But if you don't think our invasion has broken its remains, and continues to break it, you really have nothing to offer in excluding "political leanings" from debate.

Re:.limbo

[CyricZ]

Yeah, things were much better when the legal system was the torture and execution of anyone who looked at the leadership funny.

Things haven't changed, you realize. These days it's just young American kids from the southern states, rather than Iraqis, torturing the innocent.

You do remember the whole Abu-Ghraib scandal, do you not? And that's just what has become public. Who knows how much more torture is actually going on over there, even now.

Re:.limbo

[roman_mir]

Yeah, things were much better when the legal system was the torture and execution of anyone who looked at the leadership funny. - you may just be describing the great democratic US of A 25 years form now. How do we know that all political systems do not lead to the same conclusion at the end?

Re:.limbo

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

The Iraq constitution was to impose Sharia law.

Be glad its gone.

I'd rather us put Saddam back than have that.

And I don't say the lightly.

Re:.limbo

[ScentCone]

These days it's just young American kids from the southern states, rather than Iraqis, torturing the innocent.

From the "north" are you? Not a chance that any National Guardsmen from north of the Mason-Dixon Line were ever jackasses, not trained enough for a particular task, of supervised by someone who turns out to be a PHB? I live in Maryland. people from the South think I'm from the North, and people from the North think I'm from the South. I get to see the asses on both sides, but it seems that I get to see a lot more condescension, patronizing, and ill-informed elitist psuedo-intellectualism from the North than the other way around.

I've had plenty of bones to pick with the Bible Belt, but I think sometimes the idiocy in that region is come by more honestly, if you will, than the hypocritical blatherings that I frequently hear from the North (specifically, the Northeast and Northwest). The Upper Midwest is not without its failings, but the people there seem to be a lot more level-headed, honest with themselves, and just more polite than the rest (not counting the South, where - despite what you seem to be suggesting - there are places you'll encounter more decency per capita than in many a New England suburb or Seattle coffee bar).

And that's just what has become public

Yeah, yeah. And police in New York all shoot immigrants 40 times (I saw it on TV once, so I'm sure we can extrapolate to the entire NYPD, and all of the citizens that live there, right?). And Howard Dean didn't appoint any African Americans to his administration, so Vermont residents are all racist, right? Get a grip.

Things haven't changed

You're right, of course. The US is busy, right now, looking for replacements for Saddam's two genius sons so that we'll still have someone to put political opponents through industrial shredders while their families watch, to torture the Iraqi national soccer team when they lose games, and a whole new crew of heavy equipment operators to dig mass graves for the ethnic cleansing of Kurdish villages that we're so busy carrying out.

Re:.limbo

[CyricZ]

No, I'm from Britain, thank you very much. I won't bother to read the rest of your post, since I can only imagine it will be full of similar incorrect assumptions and rhetoric.

Re:.limbo

[Doc Ruby]

I agree with you. I am glad it's gone. I'm glad Saddam is gone. That's not good enough. "Not as bad as Saddam", "not as bad as sharia" - those aren't good enough. Not for me, not for patriotic Americans, and most importantly, not good enough for Iraqis, who have to live with whatever we patch together there.

We already let down the liberty-seeking people of Iraq in Iraq War Sr. We're doing that again in Iraq War Jr. This time, we don't have Saddam to blame anymore, because we already took him out years ago. We own our failures. I'm not claiming the Iraqis, Saudis, Jordanians and other people bombing and fighting in Iraq are our people, that we control them - quite the opposite. No, when we're responsible for a country, that means we're responsible for fixing it, even when we didn't do all the breaking.

Re:.limbo

[ScentCone]

it will be full of similar incorrect assumptions and rhetoric

Ah, well, we wouldn't want to use any "incorrect assumptions" or "rhetoric" while blaming problems on people from a particular area of a country, now, would we? So glad that you're above all of that! How could you find the time, anyway, when you're so busy oppressing the Irish or making up for the trouble caused by ignorant Geordies? What? Those are pointless, nonsensical generalizations? Huh.

Re:.limbo

[timeOday]

Yeah, things were much better when the legal system was the torture and execution of anyone who looked at the leadership funny.

OK, not a troll here, just a question, for which I do not have the answer.

How does the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam stack up against the number of Iraqis killed by the US?

I realize there's a lot of subjectivity here, for instance under which column do we put all the deaths caused by the sanctions? But has somebody analyzed this question?

Re:.limbo

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you even *compare* abu-ghraib to torture is laughable at best.

Re:.limbo

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call the Abu-Ghraib thing torture. After all, some of those prisoners probably liked it.

Re:.limbo

[chooks]

> How does the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam stack up against the number of Iraqis killed by the US?

Some caual googling turns up this document regarding the kurdish genocide: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ I have not had time to look at the sources and verify the organizations involved in this publication. That being said, from the fine article:

When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000--a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages. Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. "What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?" he is said to have asked. "It couldn't have been more than 100,000"--as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds

I don't think the US has quite hit the 100K mark.

Re:.limbo

[timeOday]

I don't think the US has quite hit the 100K mark.

Apparently the number of noncombatants killed during the occupation alone is about 25K. If we haven't hit 100K total, that would mean at least 1 civilian is killed for every 3 insurgents. But still this would not count those killed in Gulf War I.

Re:.limbo

[jliendo]

"...Yeah, things were much better when the legal system was the torture and execution of anyone who looked at the leadership funny..."

are you talking about iraq's legal system from 2003-2005?

Re:.limbo

[node 3]

Yeah, things were much better when the legal system was the torture and execution of anyone who looked at the leadership funny.

That's what you lot don't get. It actually was better then! Now, people get killed by the US, they get killed by the insurgents, they get killed by the terrorists.

Before, there was a legal system that was at least capable of supporting a thriving modern city. Now, women are afraid to go out in public without a burqa for fear of physical assault. And there's no way the so-called "Iraqi Police" force is going to be able to do anything about that while they are busy being shot at and bombed.

Then there's the ever-increasing possibility of replacing Saddam's regime, which, as bad as it was (and it was terrible), with something even worse--a theocracy. And not just your standard theocracy, but a highly unstable one with three strongly opposed factions.

If Iraq is better off in 2012 than it was in 2002, I'll be amazed, and being a proud American, that makes me sad, ashamed, and angry.

Re:.limbo

[Darby]

I don't think the US has quite hit the 100K mark.

Unfortunately, the problem with this analysis is that the US was complicit in this genocide.
We provided the WMDs, and we betrayed the Kurds to Saddam after convincing them that they would have our support.

So, of that 100K+, a large percentage count as ours as well.

Re:.limbo

[bit trollent]

"To quote Colin Powell: "if we break it, we own it"."

This quote has always bothered me. It implies a need to stay in the country to fix the problem, and is repeated by people who 'oppose' the war while supporting it.

If I had a quote to throw in to this mess it would be, "If we break it its broken. I don't care how much krazy glue you slather the pieces with, there is no way you will ever really fix it. So pay that cashier and leave the store."

Its sad how John Kerry went from telling unpleasent truthes to the government, putting it all on the line to justify a wrong, to being just another politician. He complained about the war while being complicit in it.

What ever happened to the guy that asked, "how can you ask someone to be the last person to die for a lie"? There was so much he could have said about Iraq and chose not to. How can this be the same person?

I saw him give his speach before congress on c-span, and I was so inspired. It is so refreshing when you hear blatent truth spoken in a place usually dominated by deceptive wording and outright lies. If you ever want to piss an political machine, stand up and tell the truth.

When we needed him most he became just the kind of political stooge he had helped defeat years earlier.

He may have been 'reporting for duty' to somebody, but the Johm Kerry who rocked the nation with unpleasent truthes was Missing in Action.

FP Magazine?

[MadFarmAnimalz]

Am I the only one who thought the trolls had gotten their own publication?

Re:Perspective...

[Magada]

msnbc? puh-leeze.

Re:The most sought after Iraqi domains...

[Beautyon]

Even better:

Quinet.iq

And that's a prediction.

Politics and bureaucracy

[lheal]

There are doubtless folks at ICANN who hope that the new Iraq-CAN'T. Those folks would doubtless like to avoid legitimizing the Iraqi governement, with the only little power they have, awarding domains.

Also, recall the flap over the USA keeping control over the root servers? Not awarding the .iq TLD to Iraq is a little dig at George Bush. They know they have to do it eventually, unless the terrorists and factions manage to destabilize the new government.

Bureaucrats also hate to make a mistake.

They appear to have realized finally that they were for no good reason failing to perform their primary function.

Re:Politics and bureaucracy

[Whafro]

NB: The new Iraqi government must be stabilized before terrorists and factions can destabilize it.

Kind of Significant

[Comatose51]

It's kind of cool that they're asking for the domain back as a sovereign part of their nation. It's kind of weird in the sense that a name space is just some abstract string of data. On the other hand, certain combinations of characters in the domain is given the same or similar status or importance as a piece of land. How times have changed... and it will only become more so over time.

Who cares?

[nurb432]

They dont even need internet access, they need food and shelter at this point.

Besides, all they will do is use it for terrorist support.

Now, before you mode me down, I'm *not* saying all the population are terrorists, but the few over there that are not sure as hell dont have the resources to even care about someting as abstract as a TLD.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I'm feeding a troll, but... The "few over there that are not"? You're implying that the majority of the citizens of Iraq are terrorists, which is patently insane. I would imagine it far more likely that the vast majority of the population would like to just get back to some semblance of their old life -- running their businesses, working at their jobs, bringing home their paychecks, and feeding their family. Maybe throw in some reading, watching TV, and browsing the internet. Imagine a hypothetical super-superpower invaded us and, using human rights abuses as the justification, freed us from the tyrannical and despotic rule of the smirking, compassionless, illiterate, inarticulate, war-mongering, draft-dodging fake shit-kicker that is the current custodian of our Presidential office. Of course, a good number of people would go Red Dawn all over their asses; but, given time and new leadership, imposed or elected, most would return to the priorities of food, shelter, and entertainment.

Re:Who cares?

[nurb432]

"fake shit-kicker that is the current custodian of our Presidential office."

And you call me a troll.. Sheesh.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

My apologies for the trollish comment. The jackass in power just fills me with adjectives. That said, you didn't address my issue; perhaps it will help if I phrase it as a question: Do you honestly believe that the majority of the people of Iraq are terrorists?

Also, do you appreciate the inherent contradiction of an obvious republican asserting that the man who assassinated the first republican was a patriot?

Sheesh.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

true,not all are Terrorists,only the US Barbarians!! The other"Terrorists" are Freedom Fighters,dying for their Country and their murdered Family Members.

Re:Who cares?

[bhiestand]

They dont even need internet access, they need food and shelter at this point.

That's like saying that, now that slavery is over, blacks need to start worrying about food and shelter at this point, and quit worrying about the job market.

Most Iraqis HAVE shelter. Most have food. What they need is normal life, good jobs, internet access, a continually improving educational system, and all the bush-bashers to quit HOPING they fail (just to make Bush look bad).

What they also need is for the small minority of violent activists to sit the fuck down and take part in the rebuilding process. If they get violence down, prove they're stable, and then demand the US goes home... They can! And they'll have more than enough international support to make it happen. What they're doing is guranteeing that there will be a US military presence there forever. It also gurantees that america gets to fight the terrorist battle over there. As long as terrorists are flocking to Iraq and sending money there, they're of little actual danger to the US.

Eventually terrorists will lose in Iraq. Which organization do you really think is more distracted with it? The million+ man Department of Defense, or the small band of Al Qaeda fighters, who are trying to run for their lives, recruit new people, stop the US from finding and taking their funding, send support to insurgencies in both Iraq and Afghanistan, make deals with other terrorist organizations, AND train new people to carry out attacks ALL while trying to plan and execute attacks against the US as well as the rest of the world? Honestly. I think it has to be Al Qaeda that is distracted at this point. Either way it's not a bad strategy for the US, although I think it would've been better for this to be done in Iran than Iraq... But hey, I'm not paid to make these decisions.

Ok, all of that aside again, having a proper internet system and online presence is vital to MANY industries. Ignoring the insurgency, communications is one of the biggest problems in Iraq these days. Under 56% of male Iraqis are literate. Increased internet access, and an online presence for Iraqi companies, can only benefit the country. They currently have under 700,000 telephone lines (including mobile phones) and approximately 25,000 internet users.

I'm amazed, in a place like slashdot, there aren't more people saying "Give them internet access, give them cyber cafes, and give them books!" These are the new bedrocks of society.

Re:Who cares?

[nurb432]

How about just give them the axe?

What is a Sovereign nation?

[iambarry]

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_nation

Seems like Iraq is now, and has been for some time, a De jure sovereign nation.

However its not quite a de facto sovereign nation.

Note: I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of the merging of the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra to form modern Iraq by the British in 1918. That is a thread of its own, and not a subject I'm too familiar with.

--Barry

Re:What is a Sovereign nation?

[Citizen of Earth]

Note: I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of the merging of the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra to form modern Iraq by the British in 1918. That is a thread of its own, and not a subject I'm too familiar with.

Also a thread of its own is the bizarre notion that dictatorships have any kind of legitimacy.

Re:What is a Sovereign nation?

[LittleBigLui]

Also a thread of its own is the bizarre notion that dictatorships have any kind of legitimacy.

Or monarchies, for that matter. Yet, you can't just get rid of dictators/monarchs without causing serious troubles for the people there. Especially not if you do it like the US in Iraq (i.e. from the outside, based upon wrong accusations, constantly lying and looking suspiciously like oil thieves and thereby supplying the very terrorists you claim to fight with and endless stream of human bombs).

Pointless

[darkbit]

What is the point of refusing a tld because of instability? This makes no sense. A tld may help to stabilize Iraq.

----

All hail the Gods of Enmod

Re:Pointless

[Bent Mind]

I see three possibilities, though I'm only guessing.

1. They didn't know who to list as the owner and wanted to wait until someone claimed the government.
2. Being a US organization, they were on a power-trip.
3. Iraq's DNS server got hit in the bombing and it's just coming back online.

With possibility 1, I don't see why they couldn't just list Iraq as the owner.

If 2 is true, it's a big argument in favor of handing ICANN responsibilities over to an international body. Politics should not play part in a nations connectivity, or their ability to get a message out.

What can I say about 3? If your server is down, it's down.

But there are plenty of iq sites!

[955301]

Just take a look at google's list.

My favorite being, myshoesizeisalargernumberthanmy.iq

Re:But there are plenty of iq sites!

[learn fast]

Someone should redirect that to whitehouse.gov

Check out http://safetyschool.org/ for instance

Re:But there are plenty of iq sites!

[StonedRat]

And how many of them work? None as far as I can tell.

Re:But there are plenty of iq sites!

[Aggressiva]

Why, is that where you live?

ICANN power trip?

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Since when is it ICANN's job to decide whether or not a sovereign government is "legitimate" or not? Is this just another ICANN power trip?

Doc's still spewing the mental toxins

[Anonymous Coward]

The US took 13 years to get its paperwork in order after the Revolution, and that was people who at least had some heritage in the workings of such things. Maybe we give the Iraqis a break and some time to get up the learning curve? But scummy ideological cocksucking monsters like you don't care about facts. Anything to bash a political opponent, all other considerations, like humanity and giving a shit about anything but your pwecious ideology be damned.

Ok, that's it.

[RAMMS EIN]

``despite the fact that Iraq has been a sovereign nation for some 15 months''

Huh? So these days you have to be invaded and conquered by the USA to become a sovereign nation?

Zonk, my boy, you've done it. First the dupes, then the misleading headlines, and now this. This is the last drop. I can't stand your editorship anymore. Zonk, I hereby award you the dubious honor of being the first editor whose stories are banned from my /. homepage.

Re:Ok, that's it.

[NaDrew]

Zonk, my boy, you've done it. First the dupes, then the misleading headlines, and now this. This is the last drop. I can't stand your editorship anymore. Zonk, I hereby award you the dubious honor of being the first editor whose stories are banned from my /. homepage.

While I tend to agree, you should note that the "sovereign nation" reference is a quote from TFA.

Re:Ok, that's it.

[Jesus_666]

Wel,, there is something you can use when quoting something strange and it's called "[sic]". People will always assume that you agree with what you quote if you don't say otherwise.

Bush=Monkey

[Anonymous Coward]

so? Whatcha waiting for? MOD UP!!!

15 months??!?1

[DirtyDuck]

"despite the fact that Iraq has been a sovereign nation for some 15 months "

Iraq was a soverign nation BEFORE Bush decided to settle Daddy's old scores with Saddam and launched the invasion, costing thousands of lives, billions of dollars all for absolutely nothing. A war fought on a total lie.

"despite the fact that Iraq has been a sovereign nation for some 15 months " My ass.

Re:15 months??!?1

[Anonymous Coward]

"Iraq was a soverign nation BEFORE Bush decided to settle Daddy's old scores with Saddam"

Iraq hasn't been since the first Gulf War, when Iraqi agression forced international intervention, sanctions, weapons inspectors, border patrols, etc. I don't consider a country under those restrictions and monitoring to be soverign. Get your history straight.

Re:15 months??!?1

[ScentCone]

Iraq was a soverign nation BEFORE

No, Iraq was run by a murderous thug and his tribal minority that killed the previous regime, and killed everyone, ever since, that raised any sort of political opposition. People making a comment just like yours were the ones that got pushed through a woodchipper while your family watched. That's your idea of a sovereign nation?

Or was the sovereign part the period when Saddam tried to forcibly annex Kuwait, and started lobbing missiles into Israel and burning oil wells when he was being run back out? Or was it the part when the multinational patrol flights watching the no-fly zones over the areas in Iraq where he had been slaughtering more people came under weekly and even daily fire? Or was it the part when he completely faked up documents to show what exactly he did with the tons and tons of things like VX gas that had been in plain site during previous visits by surrender-treaty-empowered inspectors?

for absolutely nothing

I'd love to see you stand in the living room of a family in Baghdad that had, for the first time in their lives, just voted for a representative of their own choosing, and tell them that.

Re:15 months??!?1

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, sovereignity has nothing to do with humanity. The Soviet Union did worse things than those you mention to its own people but no one contested its sovereignity.

Re:15 months??!?1

[ScentCone]

The Soviet Union did worse things than those you mention to its own people but no one contested its sovereignity.

Surely you jest! The entire Cold War was a one giant contest over the legitimacy of the Soviet Union - and, of course, it wasn't (legitimate), as shown by the many "client" nations that couldn't wait to get out from under their thumb.

Re:15 months??!?1

[Anonymous Coward]

Quatsch,another Bonehead that heard the Bells ringing,but does not know where in the Hell they are hanging. Read your History about the Terrorist State of Israel and how Kuwait came about!

Re:15 months??!?1

[ScentCone]

That's OK, I prefer not to get history tips from anonymous trolling cowards.

Re:15 months??!?1

[Lordleppard]

No, Iraq was run by a murderous thug and his tribal minority that killed the previous regime, and killed everyone, ever since, that raised any sort of political opposition

I'm curious. Who do you think has killed more Iraq people? The Bush Regime Or Sadaam's Regime?

Take 3 guesses, the last 2 don't count.

Re:15 months??!?1

[ScentCone]

I'm curious. Who do you think has killed more Iraq people? The Bush Regime Or Sadaam's Regime?

I'm going with Saddam's regime. The Iraq-centric conflict in the Gulf can arguably be said to have started in 1980, when Saddam launched a more-or-less surpise attack against its neighbor, Iran. In that conflict, at least 300,000 of Saddam's Iraqi citizens were killed, most of whom were conscripted foot soldiers. Probably a million people died in that bit of Saddam's aggession, including the substantial Iranian casualties. You can bone up on his attempt to expand his territory into Iran here, if you want.

Of course, that became a grinding war of attrition, and Saddam failed to get any traction. Next stop: his attempt to take over Kuwait by force. In reversing that invasion and pushing Saddam's troops back out of Kuwait, another 20,000 or so Iraqis were killed, sacrificed again by Saddam to his expansionist ambitions.

Of course, while busy trying to gobble up neighbors, Saddam's ruling clan oversaw horrendous mass killings within his own country. Those mass graves that have already been excavated show mass killings of at the very least, 400,000 people. Thousands of corpses, lined up, many with hands lashed together, with bullet holes in the back of their heads. Lots of them, women and children, too.

Then, how do you count the people that Saddam starved or medically neglected as he syphoned off the money - explicitly targeted for that use by the (ridiculously corrupt) United Nations - and instead continued to build palaces, and bolster his private Republican Guard and tribal relatives in Tikrit. Then there's the 50,000-100,000 Kurds that he killed while trying to crush their movement for freedom from minority Sunni rule.

How are we doing so far? I'm guessing that you'll now back up the implication of your comment, and enumerate how the United States has killed over a million Iraqis? Get busy. And just for comparison, be sure to mention the millions that recently got to vote, for the first time ever, for their own elected officials.

Re:15 months??!?1

[Darby]

I'm going with Saddam's regime. The Iraq-centric conflict in the Gulf can arguably be said to have started in 1980, when Saddam launched a more-or-less surpise attack against its neighbor, Iran. In that conflict, at least 300,000 of Saddam's Iraqi citizens were killed, most of whom were conscripted foot soldiers.

You always seem to ignore large portions of reality to attempt to justify a war which a vast number of people knew before and everybody knows now was based on outright lies. Whether it's your inability to actually admit to the fact that you were wrong when you were attacking those who actually bothered to inform themselves about the issue or some other reason isn't really relevant, but it is something you owe to yourself and the rest of us to get figured out.

For example, it must have completely slipped your mind that Saddam was our puppet at that point, that we supplied him with the weapons he used in the war and that we supplied the Iranians their weapons as well. Right, but obviously we bear no responsibility for that.
Good lord, take personal responsibility for our actions?!?! You're right, I'm some crazed communist to want to do that.

So, a large chunk of those deaths are ours.
We supplied him with the gas he used on the Kurds and then betrayed them, so a lot of those are ours too.

Next stop: his attempt to take over Kuwait by force. In reversing that invasion and pushing Saddam's troops back out of Kuwait, another 20,000 or so Iraqis were killed, sacrificed again by Saddam to his expansionist ambitions.

Oh, gee, what do you know... we told him to go ahead and invade Kuwait. So had we not done that, then odds are he wouldn't have invaded.

Again, we own a lot of those deaths.

See, you seem to have a habit of jumping up to defend America against anyone slagging anything we do. That's great and all, but it's known as jingoism and it is a bad thing.
To be a patriot means loving your country, but that doesn't mean sycophantically leaping to its defense whenever anything uncomplimentary is said against it.

It means informing yourself about what it actually does and standing up *against* it when what it does is wrong.

What you continually do as in your rant about the guy from England who you said must be a northerner etc. is take some trivial detail i.e. the fact that he said the Abu Gharib torturers were southern and rant on about what an evil dipshit he is for that while ignoring the actual meat of the post.

Fact: America does brutal, disgusting, inhuman and criminal things.

You by taking the tack you do on every one of these issues show your support for all of them.
If you would ever take an honest approach rather than a gung ho America can do no wrong and you're a dirty fucker if you think it ever can, then you might actually be able to deflect some of the criticism into more useful courses. When you continually refuse to acknowledge *any* responsibility whatsoever, all you do is make yourself look dishonest or ignorant.

Sorry, Dude, I'm just really sick of that mindless America is the bestest coolest everything because we are circular reasoning clusterfuck attitude that has no possibility of ever doing anything positive and serves solely to allow the shitbags who commit atrocities in our names with our money to continue.

Get this through your head:
We are not always right by definition.

Re:15 months??!?1

[Anonymous Coward]

"For example, it must have completely slipped your mind that Saddam was our puppet at that point, that we supplied him with the weapons he used in the war and that we supplied the Iranians their weapons as well."

Yeah, that would explain why Iraq did all of those things with a majority of Soviet tanks, missles, and rifles.

Monday-morning quarterbacking is oh-so convienient seing as how you can never be wrong, because, hey, you weren't the person making the decision in the first place, were you?

Trying to make a case without looking at historical context is, well, poor research.

"Sorry, Dude, I'm just really sick of that mindless America is the bestest"

And a lot of people are sick of the hipocracy you and your like show when the supposed "moral" standard you hold only applies only to the U.S. and you essentially give every other contry on the face of the earth a pass when it comes to those "moral" matters.

Re:15 months??!?1

[/dev/trash]

I hear we caused the Tianmennen Square massacare too.

Also you do know that the Iran-Iraq war was before the current war, right? Right?

Re:15 months??!?1

[ScentCone]

Let me see if I can sum up your point here: some of the people elected to makine decisions, or take actions on behalf of the US do things that you find distasteful or even criminal. The things that you do - and do not - say imply that you consider this to be a fairly recent development, embodied not by the previous administration, but rather the current one. This is enough of an issue for you that you're willing to indict the US as "brutal," "criminal," etc. I find this sentiment to be common enough on slashdot that I feel not the least bit jingoistic, as you put it, to counter intellectually lazy (or blatantly dishonest) statements (such as the GP's implication that the US has "killed more Iraqis" than Saddam) with a re-examination of some basic information.

You're countering with un-referenced, casually tossed-about notions (like the absurd "we told Saddam is was OK to invade/annex Kuwait") in a tone and manner that is deliberately framed to bypass the larger picture and focus on that which you're hoping will be (or lacking that, seem to be) notorious enough to set your readers up for whatever you're hoping will come of that altered world view.

I'm just really sick of that mindless America is the bestest coolest everything

So, instead, you'll do your level best to join the "America is the worstest, evilist everything" chorus? To what end? You suggest that you find support for the country's activities/attitude to be enabling even more of what you don't like, and the spending of money and blood on the same. So, what do you figure is the right use of US horsepower and the huge interest that so much of the world has in trading with, moving to, or being allies with western life? There are plenty of people in the US that would pick a completely different range of things that they'd consider to be either wastes of our tax dollars, a risk to the future of what's left of our rational culture, or endless miserable boondoggles, or even government structures/practices unconstituional/criminal in their nature. And we don't have to get past domestic politics, entitlement programs, or any of the other hot buttons that get other people just as wound up as you are about democracy in Iraq.

How about a little context, here? The entire thrust of the GP's post is that, somehow, the US is worse that Saddam was, in terms of the deaths of Iraqi people. That glib little assertion requires some perspective, and I'm not at all bothered by responding at least somewhat in kind. An exhaustive exploration of every bit of the geopolitical entanglements of the Cold War (as it relates to Iraq/Iran, for example) doesn't need to get dragged into a simple response pointing out that the GP's body-count-oriented comment was a troll. Now, let's say we didn't have to hold our noses about anything we've ever had to do, ever, in our relations with any country ever. What, would that reduce Saddam's personal culpability for murderering Iraqis by... a third? Half? My comment is still appropriate: the US hasn't "killed more Iraqis than Saddam's regime" no matter how you want to slice it. And as keen as you are to lecture me about what you perceive as jingoism, you're pretty gleefully ignoring the context of the thread. Are you equally ready to lambaste people who, without bothering to back up anything they say/imply, assert that we've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, or that people from the US South are happy and willing torturers? Would you lay into those people... if they linked to some statistics? What would you call the opposite of jingoism? How would you address the reflexive, pervasive "America (and all the people in it) are evil murderers" tone that so frequently surfaces here and in other venues?

Fact: America does brutal, disgusting, inhuman and criminal things.

No, humans do. Every country, everywhere. Are you saying that it's the policy of the US, with the blessings of its voters, decade after decade, to do brutal, criminal th

Re:15 months??!?1

[Darby]

The things that you do - and do not - say imply that you consider this to be a fairly recent development, embodied not by the previous administration, but rather the current one.

No, not at all. I challenge you to point to anything I said that could be interpreted that way by a reasonable person. I've pointed out many times before that the US has a long history of that and the rest of the world a much longer one.

This is enough of an issue for you that you're willing to indict the US as "brutal," "criminal," etc.

Which again, isn't what happened.
I said the US has *done* such things.

I find this sentiment to be common enough on slashdot that I feel not the least bit jingoistic, as you put it, to counter intellectually lazy (or blatantly dishonest) statements

Well, I already demonstrated that "this sentiment" isn't what you thought it was so that particular argument falls apart now.

(such as the GP's implication that the US has "killed more Iraqis" than Saddam) with a re-examination of some basic information.

He said that, you responded with some complete nonsense. I demonstrated how exactly your argument was at least as dishonest as the OP's and you respond that it's ok for you to tell ridiculous lies because you're defending America or some such horseshit which was my point in the first place.

You're countering with un-referenced, casually tossed-about notions (like the absurd "we told Saddam is was OK to invade/annex Kuwait")

Wow, you're actually trying to refute my point by demonstrating it even harder. That scam has certainly worked well for the current administration, but when it's actually what we are discussing, it just makes you look silly.

It makes the US look bad therefore it is absurd.
QED
Very nice use of logic there, I commend you.

Since it's pointless for me to give you a reference since you will most likely just reject it based on the source or the font color or some other irrelevant crap, the relevant keywords to google for are "April Glaspie" (US Ambassador at the time "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."), "Iraq" and "Kuwait" (obviously).

The jist of it being that there's certainly no evidence that we told Saddam to go ahead, but we did lead him to believe that we didn't really care.
I note that you didn't describe the other examples I gave as "absurd" meaning, I presume, that you haven't been able to bury your head deep enough in the sand to avoid knowledge of them.

So, what percentage of those deaths would you feel reasonable to assign to the US?
Given that, how far off is the OP's assessment now?
Much closer than you were originally trying to convince everybody as long as you pick anything above 0.
Of course, that would again just prove my original point.

So, instead, you'll do your level best to join the "America is the worstest, evilist everything" chorus?

Again, absolutely not. Again, I challenge you to find anything I said that could be interpreted that way by a reasonable person.

I'm the one saying that we need to take an honest look at our actions and assess them in regards to our stated values.
You are saying that any criticism of the US makes one part of the "America is the worstest, evilist everything chorus".

I think if you take a deep breath, step back and take an honest look, you will realise that there are very few people saying anything of the sort.
There are far more people taking your route of "America is always right and any criticism is by extremist nutjobs".

So, what do you figure is the right use of US horsepower and the huge interest that so much of the world has in trading with, moving to, or being allies with western life?.....And we don't have to get past domestic politics, entitlement programs, or any of the other hot buttons that get other people just as wound up as you are about democracy in Iraq.

My point

Re:The most sought after Iraqi domains...

[GPLDAN]

Gotta run with it....

chronicles-of-ridd.iq
mensa.iq
sub100.iq

Re:The most sought after Iraqi domains...

[anaesthetica]

A certain musician might want to get muz.iq

Iraq x.10^3+ years versus USA 200+ years

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there was no uninterrupted soverignity, but if you add up the periods of independence throughout history, you get a few thousand years, EVEN IF YOU DONT THAKE THE ISLAMIC ERA INTO ACCOUNT (the last 1400+ years). Start with Summer which was the oldest human government on record (3500BC, older than Egypt or China) to Babylonia, up to Islamization, you get thousands of years of independene.

http://low.iq/

[Gopal.V]

I think Usefriendly answered that question - http://low.iq.

Seriously Iraq is just a clarion call for the faithful to join battle. The message conveyed is you know what happened when you let a Secular women's lib dick-tator like Saddam rule your country ? ... You get cut off, starved, castrated of all your armoury by UN and pounded from the south by US.

I've already written about my opinions in my journal - admittedly on a monday morning on a caffeine overdose.

Re:The most sought after Iraqi domains...

[Cyberax]

You mean zealot.iq?

PS: I never knew there is a word 'fanat' in English.

sovereign?

[gaanagaa]

How can a country be labeled as a sovereign nation when they are lead by a Prime minister and a President. Both of them elected by the their own people.

Re:sovereign?

[oberondarksoul]

You misunderstand the term 'sovereign'. Quoth Wikipedia:

"Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over a geographic region, group of people or oneself. Sovereignty over a nation is generally vested in a government or other political agency, though there are cases where it is held by an individual. A monarch who rules a sovereign country can also be referred to as the sovereign of that country."

So there you go.

Re:sovereign?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a country be labeled as a sovereign nation when they are lead by a Prime minister and a President. Both of them elected by the their own people.

Nice attempt at sarcasm, but the problem is that the Prime Minister and President leading Iraq are from Britain and the USA.

Re:sovereign?

[typical]

"They din't have none of that there democrusy until we done gave it to 'em. They ain't no suvrin cuntry without it."

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! [1]

[Red Flayer]

[1] Well, all about speculation about something that will have already occured by the time you read it.

From the summary: "But one Baghdad political insider says that the imbroglio is likely to end 'imminently'--possibly by the time this magazine hits newsstands--with ICANN handing over .iq to the new government."

I have to commend the article writer, the submitter, and the editors for giving us 'news' that is obviously (obviously as in noted in the article summary) outdated. When an article tells you itself that it is outdated, that's a really, really big hint that some more research is in order before the article gets submitted and/or posted.

Of course, that's what the readers are for -- to do the research themselves and post comments with updated information.

This website has the text of a CNN article from last June explaining why .iq has not been made available to Iraq, and why reassignment has been problematic: http://forums.hostmysite.com/about228.html

Here's some news from 8/5 (over a month ago!) about the .iq reassignment: http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/new s/editorial/12314495.htm

And here it is again: http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml ?articleID=167600327

A couple seconds with Google is all it took.

Please, submitters, you should be checking your submissions for accuracy and 'datedness'.

Re:Perspective...

[That's Unpossible!]

For very small values of "News". It's really a Tech Trivia site.

So then I'm trying to figure out why you thought a tech trivia site should be covering Iraq/Katrina news...

ICANN's FAQ explains away any Star Chamber ideas

[ianscot]

ICANN does have the chartered role of deciding which registrar in a given country gets to dole out the domains. In this case apparently back in 1997 they made a previous "delegation" for Iraq -- I don't see which element of Saddam's government had that authority. Now they're changing the registrar to the National Communications and Media Commission (NCMC) of Iraq.

It seems a little less Star Chamberish, given that we can review their minutes and look at the FAQ that explains their role.

(Don't blame them for SPAM or Web gambling, folks. They're just the cabal of international bankers and Star Chamber judges who decide who gets to map the IP addresses to the domains.)

goatse.iq

[Fastball]

Been looking for a new home since Christmas Island puckered...errmm...closed down the original.

ICANN, America and the world

[Anonymous Coward]

It is, of course, precicely this sort of attitude by ICANN (and the American government that backs it) that prompts the rest of the world to want to take control into their own hands. ...but ICANN seems to have a problem with that.

You've Overdosed on Your Poisonous Lies

[Doc Ruby]

What political opponent? The war in Iraq? Don't you want that to stop? And to continue to apply your totally worthless "American Revolution" analogy, don't we then have at least 5 more years of war, like the 1776-1784 war? Are you asking for 18 more years of Iraq civil war? After your warmongers told us it would be a cakewalk, that "major combat operations" were over after a couple of months? Doesn't your propaganda really reveal that you want endless war in Iraq, and everywhere else you're allowed to call the shots?

Typical Anonymous rightwinger psychopath Coward: too chickenshit to use an identity that would tag your future posts with the lies you post today. Attacking me for your own worst problems: partisanship and spin. I point out that Iraq is a legal disaster, and somehow I am an ideologue. Psychopath Republicans like you can't think of anything but politics, keeping your boys in power despite their miserable failures on every front. Your endless prattle about "humanity" is shown everyhwhere to be lies to protect your wallets while you destroy everything you touch.

Re:You've Overdosed on Your Poisonous Lies

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -1
    100% Troll

Now we see the Anonymous Coward / TrollMod strategy. Post a flame as AC, then TrollMod the reasoned response. There's no troll in my response, but the AC parent to which I responded is designed as a Troll, to which I did not respond with merely the "expected response". Instead, I slapped down the strawman argument, and presented facts and logic. Meanwhile, the slappable parent is modded "Insightful". We're dealing with an insurgent army of TrollMods.

Re:You've Overdosed on Your Poisonous Lies

[Perky_Goth]

i love your posts for a while now, but stop bitching. noone's going to change slashdot and it pains me to see someone nice, inteligent and informed waste time with it.

either way, cheers, keep posting.

Re:You've Overdosed on Your Poisonous Lies

[Doc Ruby]

I post those moderation bitches to give Metamoderators something to see when they choose to "see context" of a negative mod. I've gotten feedback from metamods replying to my bitches saying they metamod'ed the post I bitched about as "unfair". So I have already changed Slashdot, by using its comments to fix its metamoderation. Besides, I feel better after bitching, so it's not a waste of time for me. And my satisfaction is the only measure I have for determining how to waste time on Slashdot. I'm glad you enjoy many of my posts, really I am, but I gotta be me.

Re:You've Overdosed on Your Poisonous Lies

[Perky_Goth]

in that case... good for you!
it's not politicly correct to be passionate about smtg these days... sigh.

Re:You've Overdosed on Your Poisonous Lies

[Doc Ruby]

Real passion barely notices "political correctness", or correctness of any category.

Predictably, we get a lot of static...

[suitepotato]

...all about GWB and the war and such...

And of course the time it is taking for Iraq to get a stable post-Hussein government and constitution. Two points to remember people: first, the USA didn't invent the constitution overnight, it really took years of wrangling prior to the Declaration of Independce straight on through the Bill of Rights afterwards and if you really want to get into the lineage of it, it goes back before the Magna Carta. Representative democracy isn't something that happens overnight and it takes a while to be embraced and become something people love and understand the give and take of.

Second, the Iraqis have been under top-down control for a very very long time and the only thing that happened was that the old hatreds were either in favor of only one faction or they were put on hold under threat of action from above. Just like the Soviet Union never solving the hatreds they for years kept from being acted on in open fighting and when the USSR went bye-bye...

It will take a while. But it is far better than being ruled by a guy who was running the place as if he was a two-dimensional stock enemy from a Golan-Globus film or for the ones requiring a recent example, as if they were Howard Saint in The Punisher.

Re:Predictably, we get a lot of static...

[node 3]

Two points to remember people: first, the USA didn't invent the constitution overnight, it really took years of wrangling prior to the Declaration of Independce straight on through the Bill of Rights afterwards and if you really want to get into the lineage of it, it goes back before the Magna Carta. Representative democracy isn't something that happens overnight and it takes a while to be embraced and become something people love and understand the give and take of.

That's why people were saying this war would last years, even though the President pretended like it would be a few months, and that the Iraqis would self-rule in time for the troops to be home by Christmas.

That asshole deserves all the "static" he gets. If the American people were told, upfront, the true cost of the war, we'd never, ever have agreed to it.

This war costs about a billion dollars per day (over a trillion every three years--that's 1 trillion dollars not spent on us, the people of the US, from whom the money was taken/given. This war has costs thousands of American lives (you only get on the "official" count if you die in action and in Iraq. If you die from wounds en route to Germany, for example, you don't get added to the list), tens of thousands of American's have been wounded and maimed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, wounded, or maimed.

There's no way the American public would have heard that and said, "yeah, that's what we want." And that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that the basis of the war was a lie (either deliberate, or through willfully accepting information just because it served the President's desire to invade Iraq).

It will take a while. But it is far better than being ruled by a guy who was running the place as if he was a two-dimensional stock enemy from a Golan-Globus film or for the ones requiring a recent example, as if they were Howard Saint in The Punisher.

No, it's not better. It should be, but it's not. The current situation is Iraq is worse than it was pre-invasion (and it was horrible back then!). Going into the future, it's highly likely that Iraq will become a theocracy (more so than under Saddam), with three highly antagonistic factions vying for power, none of which really give a damn about true democracy.

In other words, just because Saddam was an evil tyrant, it doesn't logically follow that toppling him ensures his replacement is going to be better.

"Limited sovereignty"

[dpbsmith]

I thought the U.S.'s official position was that Iraq was granted "limited" sovereignty by the U.S.

Of course, given that "sovereign" means "One that exercises supreme, permanent authority," it seems to me that "limited sovereignty" is a contradiction in terms, like "almost infinite" or "nearly a virgin..."

Re:The most sought after Iraqi domains...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking duh. Go ask your mom if you're too dumb to sound it out.

Alternative TLD = .gwb

[Anonymous Coward]

ICANN has offered .gwb as an alternative domain for Iraqi sites.

Look for the following sites soon:

haliburton-iraq.gwb
myiraqioil.gwb
mideasttx.gwb
wmd.maps.google.gwb

And my personal favorite...
ifwarwasforoil.whydoesgascostmorethanbefore.gwb

Re:Alternative TLD = .gwb

[Phroggy]

ifwarwasforoil.whydoesgascostmorethanbefore.gwb

I'm not entirely sold on the idea that we invaded Iraq for oil, but if it's true, that doesn't mean the goal was making gas cheaper.

When gas prices go up, who pockets the extra money?

Who are GWB's friends?

Re:Perspective...

[spun]

For very broad definitions of "tech."

It's really a "steaming pile of redundant trivia that doesn't matter for dweebs who wish they were nerds" site.

Which is why I love it so much.

Re:Perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Fox news... For Accurate/Fair/Balanced news.

OH wait... noone on /. wants that... they just want the left biased stuff.

Not the reasons we invaded for ... !

[Anonymous Coward]

"No blood for oil!", "Bush lies!" ... so I hear from my liberal friends, who keep telling me how the Iraq war was based on lies and deception ... and I ask, what lies? Putting aside the WMD issue, which is far too subtle and complex for mere discussion on the internet, we still have the War on Terror. Yes, Iraq is full of terrorists, which was more than 50% of the reason our President (democratically elected; just to remind you that you are in the minority and therefore have no right to complain) decided to take out Saddam ... what's that, liberal, no terrorists in Iraq? Sure, you're right, no terrorists in Iraq! It's swarming in them ... this is why our President had to invade, to stop them from committing more acts of terror and endangering innocent little children. I really don't get anti-war types, to overlook facts this obvious ... could anybody enlighten me (in a civil manner, please ... I'd like to think that the reputation that extremist liberals have for being foul-mouthed is exaggerated)?

ICANN is retarded...

[greymond]

The guy they had running the .iq addresses was arrested for funneling money to terrorists. Instead of just finding a replacement from another official they chose to run it themselves - and by that I mean not let anyone use it. Now that the US is pretending to show people they care about the Iraq citizens by giving them back their internet and supplying McDonalds we need to have ICANN place another palestinian in control of the .iq's.

I think the problem is that ICANN is NOT an independant body nor "quasi-independant" as the article suggests....

Typical Doc Ruby Braindead Blather

[Anonymous Coward]

I post AC because I don't bother with an account, and, nope, I'm not a Republican. Not even close. I think Bush is an a-hole. I'm more of a libertarian anarchist. And I speak to your pattern of posts over time. You are an idiot ideologue. And your response is the typical, frothing, rabid, fuckhead, sperm belching nonsense of the useless, idiot ideologue. I disagree with something, therefore I am a mamber of whatever political group you hate the most. Zero thought. Zero mentality. Zero intellect. Zero. Zero. Zero. Nothing but nothing. Vacuum. Useless.

Re:Typical Doc Ruby Braindead Blather

[Doc Ruby]

You are a nihilist. Therefore, I have nothing more to say to you. For others trapped in fascination staring at your gleaming void abyss, I might call out something, just to hear the distorted echo... echo... echo...

Re:Typical Doc Ruby Braindead Blather

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh. They're giving 5-2 odds over at the OTB parlor that you don't even know the real defintion of "nihilist". You are stupid beyond anything that an intelligent being can grasp. You always have been, and always will be, a dickless, useless nothing. You really want to help the world? Slit your wrists.

ZONK=blacklisted

[RealisticCanadian]

Yeah... I've been meaning to do this for awhile. 2 rants about him is enough for me. Zonk, your continued refusal to actually give a shit about your contributions to slashdot have finally pushed people too far.

In lieu of being able to fire you or publicly mutilate your carcass in front of the hordes of slashdotters you've pissed off slathering for your blood, you are hereby Exiled from ever being viewed by my eyes again.

May dogs have intercourse with your soul :^)

When can I register high.iq or low.iq?

[JamaisVu]

Or:
goatse.iq

Every time, ha?

[roman_mir]

Bush == Monkey

Re:Perspective...

[Kierthos]

Yeah, but the grandparent's kvetch and whine was about what /. choose to focus on about Katrina/NOLA, etc. and, let's face it... msnbc.com is far more likely to contain news stories about that then /. is.

Now, normally, I only go there for the comics page, but it is a news site as well.

Kierthos

Same Song, Second Verse

[Anonymous Coward]

The fuss about Iraq needs to be put in perspective. Recall all the years when the left in the US and Europe praised Lenin and Stalin's totalitarian state, defended its legitimatcy, and looked out for its interests.

Recall how ACLU founder Roger Baldwin visited Stalin's dictatorship, admitted there were no civil liberties there, and yet claimed in a book there was Liberty Under the Soviets. Recall how western liberals covered up Soviet genocides. In fact, the NY Times won a Pulitizer for the work of a reporter who denied the fact that Stalin starved some five million Ukranians to death in the early 1930s. And in the UK, Sidney Webb, one of the most important influences on the UKs Labor party, wrote a book in which he grudgingly conceeded in the face of ample evidence that a mere 100,000 people may have died, and that to due to bureaucratic blunders not deliberate policy. He did, however, lament with great eloquence and even call a "holocaust" the fact that, as they starved, Ukranian farmers ate millions of the goats and cows that Stalin intended to collectivize. And do not forget how quickly many on the left shifted from opposion to Hitler to isolationism after the 1939 pact between Stalin and Hitler or how, as Stalin occupied Eastern Europe and placed puppet regimes in power, very few liberal organizations protested. Stalin, after all, had been FDR's "Uncle Joe."

Recall more recently in the 1980s when the left opposed efforts by Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II to pressure the Soviet Union into ending its very real occupation of Eastern Europe. Remember the marches and a nuclear "freeze" that would freeze the number of western missiles while doing nothing to reduce the number of newly installed Soviet missiles. Recall too how their efforts failed and, as Reagan demanded, the Berlin Wall came down.

Now recall that all that is no more. If leftist dictatorships were an animal, they'd be on the endangered species list. For those who think the few (them) were born booted and destined to rule over the many (us), it was a dreadful calamity. Their solution is simple and consistent with their past. Lacking Soviet and Maoist dictatorships to defend, they now defend the crude blend of dictatorships, theocratic states, and kleptocracies that fill the Middle East. Left to them, those regimes would stay in power indefinitely.

That's why they say nothing about Saddam's mass graves, now being dug up. That's why they want to see Iraq descend into chaos, why they're so hostile to the region's two democracies Israel and Iraq, and why they're soon to be hostile toward Lebanon as it democratizes.

Make no mistake. Many in the Western liberal/socialist elite are deeply hostile toward democracy and human rights. (Need I remind you of their defense of legalized abortion up to birth.) Deprived of a Soviet model for rule, they're now turning to other models even, bizarre as it sounds, Islamic ones. In the 1970s, Carlos the Jackel was the world's premier Marxist terrorist. Now living comfortably in a French prison, he's coverted to Islamic terrorism and continues to get adoring articles in the 'progressive' press.

Are all on the left bad? No. Many are simply fools who believe lies--in this case the "illegitimacy" of the Iraqi government. Stalin, surveying all the leftist intellectuals, university professors and liberal clergymen who visited his country, doting over him and believing all his lies,, had the perfect term for them. They were "useful fools."

Three quarters of a century later, the supply of "useful fools" shows no evidence of diminishing, as some of these Slashdot postings illustrate.

--Mike Perry, Seattle, Editor, Dachau Liberated

Re:Extra! Extra! Read all about it! [1]

[ScrewMaster]

Of course, that's what the readers are for -- to do the research themselves and post comments with updated information.

Oh, sorry ... for a second there I thought you were referring to Wikipedia.

Pnemonics and then some

[lcsjk]

FP, TLD, ICANN, IRAQ

I can't tell what's what from the who's who anymore!

"sovereign" and "invaded" are mutually exclusive

[jliendo]

"...FP Magazine is reporting that despite the fact that Iraq has been a sovereign nation for some 15 months..."

uh? iraq was founded as a sovereign nation on 1932, thats more than 73 years, not just 15 months, ago! pls check your facts...

in fact 15 months ago Iraq was invaded and by definition an "invaded nation" could not be called a "sovereign nation"...

www.180.iq

[zoloto]

180.iq

Patriot

[nurb432]

Booth thought Lincoln was destroying the USA, and was willing to die for his country in order to protect it.

That qualifies him as a patriot.

Now, I wont debate if he was misguided or not, my only reason for having that as my sig is to make people think, not to make a political statement in either direction.

As far as the Iraq issue, I cant accurately quote you the % of the citizens that are terrorists.

However, going by past history, that area of the world has a higher ratio then the rest of the civilized world. Take that as you wish.

Since when does ICANN determine national egitmacy

[rtphokie]

They've got about as much success in such maters as the UN.

I say if they've got a capitol, and their neighbors say they are a legitimate country, then they are.

Iraq was not a Sovereign nation!

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq was a Dictatorship.

I do not acknowledge dictatorships as "sovereign" and if you had any respect for freedom and human dignity, neither would you.

Re:The most sought after Iraqi domains...

[Cyberax]

My mom doesn't speak English :)

And you're too stupid to figure out that English is not a native language for many Slashdot readers.