Slashdot Mirror


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."

37 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Sovereign nation? by earthlingpink · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Sovereign nation? by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    2. Re:Sovereign nation? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    3. Re:Sovereign nation? by mdarksbane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So Japan isn't sovereign either, then?

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

    4. Re:Sovereign nation? by Lisandro · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

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

    5. Re:Sovereign nation? by agurkan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ato
    6. Re:Sovereign nation? by SnowZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    7. Re:Sovereign nation? by neomac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."

    8. Re:Sovereign nation? by w3woody · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    9. Re:Sovereign nation? by DirePickle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bush = Monkey

    10. Re:Sovereign nation? by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

    11. Re:Sovereign nation? by JoshWurzel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ahem. I'd like to disprove that theory.

      Bush = Monkey

    12. Re:Sovereign nation? by SnowZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  2. this is why... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      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.

  3. WTF? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:WTF? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:WTF? by m50d · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:WTF? by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  4. Huh??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "has been a sovereign nation for some 15 months"

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

  5. Re:Perspective... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  6. Re:Perspective... by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is a tech news site
    For very small values of "News". It's really a Tech Trivia site.
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  7. Re:Perspective... by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  8. Article right by technoextreme · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  9. .limbo by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:.limbo by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    2. Re:.limbo by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:.limbo by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:.limbo by Darby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  10. Politics and bureaucracy by lheal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  11. Re:51st State by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  12. ICANN power trip? by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  13. 15 months??!?1 by DirtyDuck · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "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.

  14. You've Overdosed on Your Poisonous Lies by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  15. Predictably, we get a lot of static... by suitepotato · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...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.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  16. "Limited sovereignty" by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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..."

  17. Every time, ha? by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bush == Monkey