The Fracturing of the Internet

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Fracturing of the Internet

Posted by Zonk on Friday September 30, 2005 @07:59AM from the there-actually-will-be-internets dept.

farrellj writes "There is currently a major conflict between the US and the rest of the world about the control of the Internet. They are fighting over who will control the root DNS servers and assign IP addresses. The US is against an independent international body to do this. This could fracture the Internet into multiple country and regional mini-internets, with conflicts over IP and Domain Name assignments, with no interconnects between them." From the article: "... the Bush administration said in July that the United States would 'maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.' In so doing, the government 'intends to preserve the security and stability' of the technical underpinnings of the Internet. Without consensus, some experts say that countries might move ahead with setting up their own domain name system, or DNS, as a way of bypassing Icann." Update: 09/30 20:45 GMT by Z : I believe this to be another view of the discussion we had a while back.

33 of 440 comments (clear)

followup field by JS_RIDDLER · 2005-09-30 08:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

/. needs a followup field, to link to previous related articles.
I dont mind hearing about them again, it would just be nice to be able to see the past article. Kinda like the "Related Links" on the right side of the articles we have now.

It nice how this article DOES link to the previous story at the end.
which was Posted 09:43 AM -- Friday September 30 2005

If funny how he calls it the other day tho

--
_JS
1. Re:followup field by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · 2005-09-30 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Uh- lets be honest.
  1. Post story about US vs World.
  2. Watch discussion degenerate into a flame war, as it always does in these type of stories
  3. Get tons and tons of comments, mostly angry rants by trolls and flame throwers posting as ac, which is all but gauranteed with a story like this
  4. Get more pages refreshed
  5. Serve more ads!
  6. Profit.
  Even a/c counts as a page view from a traffic standpoint. An intelligent conversation devoid of a/c and flaming gets many fewer posts and thus fewer total ads served. If it that complicated? If you can get a story like this up once in a day, double you money by running it again!!!
  
  --
  And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
2. Re:followup field by Dogtanian · 2005-09-30 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Even a/c counts as a page view from a traffic standpoint. An intelligent conversation devoid of a/c and flaming gets many fewer posts and thus fewer total ads served. If it that complicated?
  
  My feelings exactly. How naive do you have to be exactly to believe that all those "dupes" are really down the incompetence of the editors?
  
  Slashdot is a large, well-visited site, with paid editors, and we're asked to believe that they're not capable of spotting stuff like this?
  
  Sorry, it happens often enough that if it weren't deliberate, they'd have hired someone with two brain cells to rub together by now. Simple acknowledgements of the dupe or even of their supposed incompetence have become so much of a Slashdot "tradition" that it obscures the bleedingly obvious lack of plausibility these repeated "mistakes" have.
  
  But in this case, I'm glad of the dupe, because without it, I'd have missed the banner advert for another gimmicky boy's toy^w^w^w brain-expanding, uh... glowy thing from ThinkGeek that I *must* buy!
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
3. Re:followup field by evildogeye · 2005-09-30 10:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is ironic that one of the Slashdot's primary themes over the years has been the evilness and incompetence of Microsoft, and yet with their constant duplicates, Slashdot is either being evil or incompetent. Personally, I understand that business is business, and have no problems with this behavior - Slashdot attacts much their readership by constantly attacking Microsoft.
  
  Embrace your moral hypocrisy!
Govern by certel · 2005-09-30 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think anyone can really blame any country for wishing to control their own aspect of the internet.

--
[%] Cingular Ringtones
1. Re:Govern by diegocgteleline.es · 2005-09-30 08:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem is that Internet is not "their own", it is a world-wide service.
  
  Yes, I guess we can't blame US for wanting to control certain things from another countries. I guess the EU would do the same. What buggers me is that our governments (US and EU) are so fucked up that it seems countries aren't able to think "hey, this is the Right Thing to do, let's do it because everybody will benefit". Instead, apparently they just think "let's do everything we can to have more power and control so we can have more money"
2. Re:Govern by anaesthetica · 2005-09-30 08:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What buggers me is that our governments (US and EU) are so fucked up that it seems countries aren't able to think "hey, this is the Right Thing to do, let's do it because everybody will benefit". Instead, apparently they just think "let's do everything we can to have more power and control so we can have more money"
  
  I agree. The U.S. has given power over the Internet to a private group with an international board. It doesn't directly control ICANN, but it does retain a veto--a right which it has infrequently exercised. The EU and the other countries are making a power play to move internet governance to the UN, where their governments can gain power over how the internet is used and regulated. This isn't altruistic in its motivations in the least, and it's certainly not The Right Thing To Do. Everybody has benefited from the internet so far, and it is only active government intervention that has limited people's access to free information.
  
  --
  The Rise and Fall of Online Community
3. Re:Govern by certel · 2005-09-30 08:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, depends when you want to classify the internet as 'international' because the internet originated in the United States and just increased as other countries had the ability and technology to do so. So, one could argue that the internet IS the United States and we allowed access from other countries. Now that other countries are involved, they feel the need to have some type of control. It's a lose-lose situation.
  
  --
  [%] Cingular Ringtones
4. Re:Govern by anaesthetica · 2005-09-30 09:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Right, the U.S., as a member of the UN, would have a good deal of say over Internet governance if this plan were to go forward. On the other hand, should the Internet have the U.S. along with every other government in the world having a say over its governance? The U.S. has given a private organization with an international board control over the Internet. It maintains a laissez-faire position, with the exception of a veto, which is not frequently (or at all) used.
  The U.S. is pro-democracy, but only insofar as democracy is a means to guarantee a liberal and limited government. The UN is anything but, because of its member states, who are far more willing (indeed eager) to regulate, limit, and filter the internet. Other nations already have a voice--they just don't have ultimate control. And that's a good thing.
  
  --
  The Rise and Fall of Online Community
5. Re:Govern by displaced80 · 2005-09-30 09:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ok -- this is Slashdot -- I think we all understand the 7-layer model.
  
  The IP network would be worthless without the higher level protocols and services. Likewise, there's a whole stack of further inventions, developments and products of world-wide research that the IP concept grew from.
  
  My point is, when it comes to the Internet, Nationalism (for that's what this is) is ugly. There's a pissing contest going on here and it's just plain dumb.
  
  We're talking about root DNS. That's all. It's fucking pathetic that neither the powers that be, nor us /. plebs can discuss sensibly the best management of these (13?) servers that would be most beneficial for the global interoperability of the internet.
  
  Instead, it's deteriorated to "We invented it! It's ours!". Don't behave as if the spread of the internet was pure altruism. It's spread because it made money for companies all over the globe. The internet may have been a US invention, but its current breadth, penetration and sheer utility is a product of global contribution. And that's why the people and corporations (and yes, if they've been paying attention, even the governments) of nations outside the US have a vested interest in the DNS.
  
  --
  What's the frequency, Kenneth?
6. Re:Govern by hunterx11 · 2005-09-30 09:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Freedom is more important than democracy, but it is rare that you can have one without the other. This, however, is one of those cases. The U.S. has shown no signs of censoring the internet at the DNS level. Many other countries would want to. If the U.S. really were exerting its power, I would be all for shifting it to the U.N., but right now countries are just trying to politicize something which shouldn't be political and has managed not to be as it is right now.
  
  --
  English is easier said than done.
7. Re:Govern by Anonymous+Luddite · 2005-09-30 13:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  >> Ok -- this is Slashdot -- I think we all understand the 7-layer model.
  
  dude, this _is_ slashdot. Half your audience is thinking "pastry" when you say "7-layer"
  
  --
  http://request-header.info
And fragmentation is bad? by null+etc. · 2005-09-30 08:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Maybe I don't understand the issue thoroughly, but I think that fragmentation would actually be good. The "information infrastructure" is becoming just as critical to us as our "power grid", or other major utility. Why would any government trust a resource that critical to be managed by any organization outside of its control?
My opinion is that an international institution should define global standards that each country can than agree or disagree to implement, and if the US wants to be separate at that point, so be it.
1. Re:And fragmentation is bad? by garcia · 2005-09-30 08:07 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Maybe I don't understand the issue thoroughly, but I think that fragmentation would actually be good.
  
  Yes, because Intranets are so fucking useful on a global scale, right? Hey, China would be thrilled! They wouldn't have to worry about the Great Firewall! Bush, his Family First supporters, and Mrs. Clinton would love that they could just block all porn from the United States' intranet. Switzerland would make a shitload of money proxying connections between all the different intranets and would unveil the Swiss Internet Bank where you could have an anonymous account access (for steep fees of course) to actually be able to use the Internet like it has been for year.
  
  Yeah, fragmentation is bad.
Time warp by pmike_bauer · 2005-09-30 08:02 · Score: 5, Funny

We had a discussion about this the other day
My flux capacitor is out of whack; the earth now rotates ~every six hours.

--
I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
dupe by anaesthetica · 2005-09-30 08:03 · Score: 3, Funny

If by "the other day" you mean earlier today, in a story posted by yourself! Unbelievable. Simply stunning. I thought dupes couldn't get any more absurd, but this one takes the cake.

--
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
If it ain't broke.. by SaidinUnleashed · 2005-09-30 08:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

...don't fix it.

I say the US has done a fine job in managing whatever it is managing.

The 'net has become a wonderful, open forum where anyone can express their ideas an opinions.

The UN tends to screw up everything it touches. I really don't want the internet to become another great cockup of the least organized, least effective polital body that has ever existed.

--
Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
1. Re:If it ain't broke.. by thesqlizer · 2005-09-30 08:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The UN tends to screw up everything it touches. I really don't want the internet to become another great cockup of the least organized, least effective polital body that has ever existed.
  In general I for one am all for concensus building and getting buy-in from folks before moving ahead with something that can have large-scale, sweeping effects. That said, the UN tends to just take t-o-o-o-o long for just about anything, and ultimately every decision falls to its member nations for actual implementation.
  
  Let's face it: there are some problems with ICANN; there are some issues with DNS; and what the HECK is going to happen with IP6?
  
  Shifting control to the UN though doesn't seem like it's going to help fix things.
  
  If there were one thing I would like to see, it's the addition of more ROOT servers--maybe a doubling of the current infrastructure. As we've already seen, those we have at present are too easily subject to the ne'erdwellers out there.
  
  --
  Best antivirus software
Security? Where? by alexandreracine · 2005-09-30 08:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

In so doing, the government 'intends to preserve the security and stability' of the technical underpinnings of the Internet.

Security on the Internet? What are they talking about?

--
No sig for now.
Fractured Internet? by rackhamh · 2005-09-30 08:05 · Score: 4, Funny

Duct tape!
IT's all BS. by mindstrm · 2005-09-30 08:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

All authority that IANA or ICANN or any other organisation has over IP addresses and DNS is through the strictly VOLUNTARY participation by every ISP and even end user, out there. Their authority comes form the recognition that an authority is needed.. that addresses need to be allocated in an organized way.

IT is ultimately those who provide the infrastructure who will decide what needs to be organized and by whom. This isn't a government issue.. it's an ISP issue.
IF this happens by Limburgher · 2005-09-30 08:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Will there also be a fracturing of existing standards going forward? Will HTML 5 be defined by individual countries? Might TCP/IP fork? Might firewall rules at national borders mess with worldwide connectivity?
I'd much rather let the UN manage the net than even begin to contemplate the above. I'm not saying the UN has properly managed everything they've touched, but there is no other international body capable of managing the internet. And it needs to not be exclusively under Amerikan control.
And I'm and Amerikan.

--
You are not the customer.
I only just discovered you could killfile editors by thumperward · 2005-09-30 08:07 · Score: 4, Informative

That's Zonk officially plonked. The only possible reason for duping your own story within the working day and adding a bleeding disclaimer at the end is to show off how pretty Politics is.

For those who haven't discovered it: It's in your home page prefs next to the topic ratings radio buttons.

Politics really is pretty though.

- Chris
Seriously... by Comatose51 · 2005-09-30 08:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seriously guys, not only is this a dupe, but the summary:
There is currently a major conflict between the US and the rest of the world about the control of the Internet...
is such an over statement that it's almost misleading. We're not going to war with the world over this. It's a dispute. The only war so far are the flame wars that broke out on Slashdot when this was posted the first time. The Iraq War was a major conflict; this is a dispute that might have serious consequences on the Internet. Let's be a little more precise.
No, I'm not new to Slashdot. Yes, I'll probably be modded down for this but this is just so silly.

--
EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
ob Bender by steveness · 2005-09-30 08:13 · Score: 5, Funny

So we'll create our own Internet! With blackjack! And strippers!
On second forget the blackjack. And the Internet.
Here's approx 0.33 of the posts (some collapsed) by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-30 08:15 · Score: 3, Funny

It's not broke...(Score:5, Insightful) by FIT_Entry1 (468985) on Friday September 30, @09:46AM (#13683886) don't fix it. [ Reply to This ] Re:It's not broke... by KjuibFriday September 30, @10:18AM Re:It's not broke... by mwilli (Score:1)Friday September 30, @10:54AM Re:It's not broke... by rabeldable (Score:1)Friday September 30, @11:01AM Re:It's not broke... by pembo13 (Score:1)Friday September 30, @11:40AM Re:It's not broke... by Dwonis (Score:2)Friday September 30, @04:11PM Re:It's not broke...(Score:5, Insightful) by fitten (521191) on Friday September 30, @11:02AM (#13684732) Personally I think the internet is broke. back in the day the internet was free. Napster was legal. A dial-up connection got you anywhere. Email was important. I think the US did break it. Though, I believe the UN can do nothing to fix it. The Internet was never "free" in either sense of the word. You may have had an Internet connection but someone paid for it. In my case, the university I attended paid for the connection and we got use of it in exchange for going to school there. Napster was never declared "legal". It simply wasn't noticed and when it was, some people had problems with it. Just like if you steal a candybar from a store and never get caught, does that mean you didn't break the law? A dialup connection can still get you anywhere if you have the right service provider. Email is important, still. Just like anything else, there's always someone out there who will piss in the pool - spammers looking to make a quick buck or virus writers who do it for the hell of it. Do you have any specific examples of where the US broke the Internet? I'm entirely convinced that the UN can't even fix itself, which it needs to do badly before worring about taking on more responsibility (for anything). [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:It's not broke... by Anonymous CowardFriday September 30, @12:10PM Re:It's not broke... by John Courtland (Score:2)Friday September 30, @12:49PM Re:It's not broke... by Dahan (Score:2)Friday September 30, @12:50PM Re:It's not broke... by ThJ (Score:1)Friday September 30, @12:58PM Re:It's not broke... by fitten (Score:1)Friday September 30, @01:29PM Re:It's not broke... by Cat_Byte (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:58PM Why the U.N.? by QuaintRealist (Score:1)Friday September 30, @03:19PM Re:Why the U.N.? by Maclir (Score:2)Friday September 30, @04:09PM Re:It's not broke... by Holi (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:24PM Re:It's not broke... by Mac Degger (Score:2)Friday September 30, @11:05AM Re:It's not broke... by lscotte (Score:1)Friday September 30, @11:13AM I don't know...(Score:5, Funny) by bullitB (447519) on Friday September 30, @11:15AM (#13684858) I think this US control of the Internet is what's been holding it back. Maybe with international bureaucracy and UN regulation, this "Internet" thing will finally take off... [ Reply to This | Parent ] Re:I don't know... by chris macura (Score:1)Friday September 30, @11:52AM Re:I don't know... by dustinbarbour (Score:2)Friday September 30, @12:03PM Re:It's not broke... by Anonymous Coward (Score:3)Friday September 30, @11:26AM Re:It's not broke... by notsoanonymouscoward (Score:3)Friday September 30, @12:40PM Re:It's not broke... by pdgill (Score:1)Friday September 30, @11:35AM Re:It's not broke... by Anonymous CowardFriday September 30, @03:56PM Such Short Memories(Score:5, Funny) by Zane Hopkins (894230) on Friday September 30, @12:18PM (#13685717) (http://www.top-find.com/) Its not about being broken, its about trust. Do none of you remember back in 95 what happened to NeverNeverLand. The US wanted to invade to close all of the Pirate Training Camps, but the NeverNeverLand government was vocal across the internet in claiming there were no training camps, just theme parks. So what happened, the US kicked NeverNeverLands domain (.nn) out of the root servers. Suddenly no one in NeverNeverLand could email one another, the government collapsed and the country went into chaos. But worse, nobody could access any
Could this be a silly idea? by ezweave · 2005-09-30 08:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

The one thing that I don't really get, is that if you understand how it all works, this doesn't really make sense. I mean this isn't something that really matters, for the most part.

A little brush up on teh Intarweb

ARPNET was the origins of the "Intarwebs", it was replaced by the U.S. built and controlled NSFNET [wikipedia.org] (full transion in 1989, Military went to MILNET). All ISPs had to sign an agreement with NSFNET (1987-1995) to connect to the backbone. NSFNET was not federally controlled, it was controlled by "Merit Network, Inc" which was run by public universities. True, a good bit of funding came from taxes, but it was up to academics as to how it was used. In 1995, NSFNET was transitioned to NAP architecture, which provided much faster routing and the capabilites for more growth. Today the "backbone" [wikipedia.org] is a collection of commercial ISPs, a few private, and a few University controlled networks. There is little to no direct federal intervention.

DNS [wikipedia.org] servers are, of course, chained in the sense that one DNS references another DNS, and DNS entries spread like viruses (lookups are forwarded). The root [wikipedia.org] level DNS servers (serving requests from the root). Some of them are DoD owned, and some are privately owned.

But not all traffic is routed through the root level DNS servers. In fact you local DNS might not need to hit the next guy in the chain if he still has a valid lookup entry for your request (check the TTL, not all BIND [wikipedia.org] implementations do this correctly). So the traffic on the internet does not go through one space, and you probably dont hit the root level DNS servers that often. Not only that but the way DNS works, unless you hit the root server yourself, it never knows that you were making the request, all it knows is that DNS server at 217.88.99.42 (or what have you) hit it.

Basically this whole argument is kind of silly. No one really controls net traffic, perse. The root DNS servers (i.e. ICANN) do for the most part reside in the US, but because of the recursive nature of a DNS lookup, it does not really tell you what is going on (put a packet sniffer on your own BIND server and see what comes up).

The Internet is still largely, "grass roots". It is largely peer-to-peer. The only centralized items are the root DNS servers.

Since the U.S. gov does not really control "the Internet", why should we change that? It sounds good in a meeting to say "you control the Internet and that isn't right", but that is gross over-simplification. Nobody really "controls" the internet. If their argument is just about moving or adding new root DNS servers, that wouldn't really matter, but instead it sounds like "politics as usual", that is to say FUD./p
Re:Brilliant Plan by JudgeFurious · 2005-09-30 08:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Will this council work with the level of efficiency and cooperation we've come to know and expect from the UN?

That's what I thought. I'll take the US-Net.

Thank You.

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Why? by LWATCDR · 2005-09-30 08:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why should the US give over control of the root DNS to the UN?
The US funded the construction of the Internet and has invited other nations to use it. Each nation has as much control over the network in it's contry as they want. Look at China and North Korea for examples.
Each country has control over it's nation level domain. The UK has control over .uk and so on.
I do not see how the UN or anybody has the right to demand the US to give over control of the root domain servers or get bent if the US says thanks but we feel like that would be a bad idea.

If the member of the UN really feel like they should have root name server control well then I suggest that the UN gets a bunch of nations together and build the UNNet. You could use IP6 from the start and have point to point encryption from the start.

Knock yourselves out.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
What's the big deal? by Spazmania · 2005-09-30 08:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

This sounds like someone making a mountain out of a mole hill. I mean really, what's the big deal?

IP addresses are already controlled regionally, not by the US. Europe and Asia each have their own registries. Theoretically they manage the IP space under rules set by the IANA, but in reality nobody is going to nay-say them if they don't.

Law and regulation? Ha! The US will regulate for the US and anyone who doesn't like that can block our IP addresses at their border. That's not going to change. Get over it.

The DNS root zone? All 62kbytes of it? Shoot. If you don't want to run ICANN's root zone, download it and run your own version. I do.

Or is control of your own counry's top-level zone not good enough for you? Is there some special zone you particularly feel you need to add to the defacto global root zone? No? Then what the hell are you complaining about!

Don't get me wrong, the ICANN is run by a non-accountable bunch of bufoons, many from Verisign, the same company that somehow managed to lose money selling domain names and ssl certificates. If anyone deserves a comeuppance, they do. But that's not the point, the point is: the system as it is now is stable, functional and reasonably cheap.

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

--
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Re:All according to plan by nokilli · 2005-09-30 08:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Economist? LOL.

Try such pesky venues like Scoop or the Guardian or pravda or AlJazeera. Venues which can and do publish stories which the U.S. government would rather you not see, like the election fiasco or the pictures of atrocities we commit or the fact that the war on Iraq started well before Congressional authorization.

Meanwhile, here in America they've got our whore media turning their backs as the caskets are unloaded at Dover and in Iraq our military appears to be actively hunting down foreign journalists. It's clear that they seek to control all access to information, the only question is, to what lengths will they go to do that?
--
You didn't know.
The US and Censorship by Thu25245 · 2005-09-30 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can you reach any of those pages?

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage/
http://www.korea-dpr.com/
http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2389/html/
http://www.cubaweb.cu/

If so, you're making use of a system maintained by the US Government.

Now try acessing
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/coredocs.html/ from China or

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=b s&sbrftog=1&catref=C6&fstype=1&from=R10&satitle=na zi+hitler&sacat=-1%26catref%3DC6&bs=Search&sargn=- 1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=ZIP%2FPostal&ftrt=1&f trv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=&fsop=1%26fsoo%3D1&coaction =compare&copagenum=1&coentrypage=search&fgtp= from Germany or France.

Seriously, who would you rather have in charge of the internet?
Badly Broken, but This Won't Fix It by billstewart · 2005-09-30 09:09 · Score: 3, Informative
ICANN is badly broken - it's not responsive to the user community, and the only "IP" it cares about is "Intellectual Property", not "Internet Protocol". That's why ICANN has insisted that everybody who registers domains in TLDs controlled by ICANN provide True Names and ICBM-addresses to facilitate trademark lawsuits, in spite of the major privacy problems with that change in whois semantics, and why it took them many years to add any additional TLDs, after taking over from the IETF Ad-Hoc Committee that had already developed a plan to do so.
However, most of the proposals for "Internet Governance" that the WSIS gang have come up with have been evil, clueless, or both.
- ICANN doesn't control the Internet, only DNS policies and IP address assignments, and expanding that scope would be Bad.
- China wants to "govern" the Internet by getting the rest of the world to enforce their censorship policies, which are currently too easy for Chinese citizens to evade by using non-China-based websites, email, and IM servers. A few other governments also want to use "governance" to censor pornography, free speech that criticizes them politics, and pornography. (Really, it's just about pr0n and evil nasty terrorists, pay no attention to that press censor behind the curtain.) ICANN currently has no control over this except perhaps blocking registry of Fulan-Gong.com
- Some third-world countries want "Internet Governance" to tax rich Internet users to subsidize internet connectivity into their countres. Not only do they fundamentally misunderstand how the Internet works, the major problem in many of those countries is telecom monopolies that provide overpriced inadequate service, and the first step in getting their citizens decent internet access is to get the telco monopolies out of the way. That doesn't mean there aren't also infrastructure problems, or that an infusion of cash couldn't be useful, but in general they'd be giving more money and power to their PTT monopolies, which is mostly counterproductive.
- I really hate treating ICANN as the Good Guys here, so I won't - this is a conflict between the Bad Guys and the Worse Guys.
DNS isn't The Internet - splitting DNS would be ugly, stupid, and easily repaired, e.g. by creating records like [newTLD].[existingTLD] or [newTLD].[NewTLDowner].net.
--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks