Soviet Union TLD Owners Snub ICANN

An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has up a post about ICANN's latest decisions about country-code TLDs. The body is making an effort to tackle the problem of Yugoslavia's .yu outliving the country by over a decade but is far from getting its way with the Soviet Union's domain .su. Around 2,500 new .su sites are created every year despite ICANN ordering its retirement — the disgruntled .su registrars have announced an 80 per cent price cut in the price of .su domains in response. 'It makes the much-publicized wrangles over the ".xxx" domain seem tiny by comparison. And it convinces me of the need to reevaluate the existence of the US Dept of Commerce-backed non-profit organisation that is ICANN. The current squabbles are petty compared to the diplomatic arguments that TLDs could cause. An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?'"

Comments

Sure!

[Otter]

An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?

Absolutely! They'll be glad to crack the whip on registrars of non-countries like the Soviet Union and Taiwan.

Re:Sure!

[HuguesT]

You mean, as soon as someone is criticizing Israel, suddenly it's antisemitism ?

The problem of sharing a forum with all the nations like the UN, is that until world peace is achieved, necessarily you will find nations there that are not friendly to each other.

The alternative is no forum, no talks and almost certainly more wars. The trouble with cheapshot armchair UN critics is that they never propose anything constructive or useful as a replacement.

Yes Syria is a nation with a poor record over many issues, too bad it's on the IAEA, but so what. It's not running the thing. Come to think of it, there are very few nations with a clean record on just about anything. AFAIK Israel got its nukes on the sly as well, and the USA is the only nation who has ever used them in anger, killing tens of thousands instantly and to this day.

Sweep your own front door, as some say.

Re:Sure!

[Hatta]

You mean, as soon as someone is criticizing Israel, suddenly it's antisemitism ?

Sure why not? I mean if you criticize the US, you get called anti-American.

Re:Sure!

[ScrewMaster]

and the USA is the only nation who has ever used them in anger

Not in anger. In a declared war. There's a difference. We didn't hate the Japanese, didn't question their right to exist, would much rather not have dropped Fatman and Littleboy. We just wanted them to stop, and the fire raids (which caused more total destruction than both atom bombs combined) weren't enough.

Most people seem to forget that, and believe that we skipped conventional warfare and went straight to nukes because, well, we just couldn't wait to murder thousands of innocent Japanese. As it happens, an absolutely incredible amount of firebombing was done before we even considered nuclear weapons, and if you read about how much devastation that caused you wouldn't be slamming the U.S. because it used a couple of 20 kiloton nuclear devicess (had a modern weapon been used Japan would have ceased to exist.) I'd also like to point out that we haven't used another atomic weapon against any enemy, declared or otherwise, to this very day. Neither did the Soviets, although one has to wonder if they'd have behaved themselves without M.A.D. and the various associated treaties. Hard to know what would have happened, but either way I'd say we swept our front door pretty well, and the rest of the world's too, once the nuclear cat was out of the bag.

Regardless, look past any distaste you may have for the United States or the Bush Misadministration and ask yourself these questions: a. has U.S. management of the Internet (really, of DNS) been sufficiently inept that control should be removed on performance grounds alone, and b. do you really, in your heart of hearts, want the United Nations to run the show? I mean ... really? More to the point, do you have the slightest idea how meaningless, from a technological perspective, it is to say "control the Internet"?

I mean, DARPA started the ball rolling, and then we let it develop in a way that has worked out to the benefit of, well ... everybody, I guess. Much of Internet engineering is actually pretty international already, when you get right down to it. Everyone is so afraid of the United States doing terrible things to people through the Internet (as if we could) and is behaving in such a petty manner, e.g. "We need to 'wrest control' of the Internet away from the U.S." What the hell does that mean, anyway? We own our parts of it. Everyone else owns theirs. Cripes.

Wise up. It's in our best interests that the Internet continue to work well, and right now it is. We need it. So does everyone else. Besides, the only aspect of the network that the U.S. could be consider to "control" is the Domain Name System, and that's just a bunch of distributed servers that any nation could duplicate and run in parallel. Nobody has, because then they would lose the benefits of being part of the global community. This is all politics and posturing, there's no substance here. Sure, some day you may get your wish: the root servers may get confiscated and someone else will be in "control" of the Internet.

Just be careful what you wish for, though ... you just might get it.

..are you kidding me?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?"

The UN couldn't find its ass if it sat down on its own hands. Not only that, they have no teeth; name me a single country that give a crap about that they have to say and I might buy that argument. The UN is less than a Paper Tiger... more like a half-dead Paper Chipmunk. How do you expect them to handle something complicated like this and actually make it work?

The UN? Surely you jest...

[Nova Express]

An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?

Yes, let's remove an organization whose competence is questioned and replace it with one whose corruption and incompetence is beyond question. That's like firing Kevin Kostner as a movie director and hiring Uwe Boll instead. Far better ICANN than the crooked, incompetent clowns at the UN. Hell, even the Mafia would be better; then at least the Internet would be run by competent criminals...

Re:The UN? Surely you jest...

[damburger]

Yes, let's remove an organization whose competence is questioned and replace it with one whose corruption and incompetence is beyond question.

Refusing to rubber-stamp US wars of aggression doesn't make them corrupt or incompetent. Sure, they are impotent to stop these imperialistic rampages - but that is the the fault of their members, not the organisation itself

Re:The UN? Surely you jest...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we know it is fashionable in America to lambaste the UN; thanks for the demonstration.

If the UN is corrupt and incompetent beyond question, then why is the U.S. still party to such a delegation? Either it isn't what you say it is, or American politicians are just as corrupt and incompetent themselves.

Re:The UN? Surely you jest...

[HuguesT]

Hello Mr Righteous, I'll assume your from the USA :

1- Yes the UN costs money, what a surprise. Nearly all the nations pay for it, though. The US likes not to.

2- Have you never heard of US soldiers raping local women ?

3- China, Cuba, etc on UN councils. Learn how they work, representative from every country get to be in them in turns. That doesn't mean they run them. At the UN, you are bound to find people from nations you disagree with in various commissions. The #1 rule of diplomacy is that you keep talking to these people anyway.

4- The UN suck, have never done anything good, etc. The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq got rid of all the WMDs. You are aware the US troops have found none left, are you? Speak of the devil, this particular engagement really showcases the skill and competence the USA shows in dealing with world matters when unhindered by useless international bodies, doesn't it ?

Given a choice of labeling you hypocrite or ignorant, I'm afraid I'll have to go with the former.

Re:The UN? Surely you jest...

[StealthyRoid]

Aww, look guys! It's a EuroTroll! Or at least a CoolCollegeLeftistTroll! Alright kid, I'll play.

Hello Mr Righteous, I'll assume your from the USA

Nope. I'm from Texas. And down here in the Republic, we know how to use apostrophes.

Yes the UN costs money, what a surprise. Nearly all the nations pay for it, though. The US likes not to.

I don't think I bitched about the UN costing money, I bitched about the fact that so much of that money gets siphoned off into someone else's pockets. See, for example, Kofi Annan and his son Kojo, or the people involved in the Food for Oil program, or the people who manage the "Palestinian" aid program, or . I'm glad that the US doesn't pay its UN bill. It's one less thing I have to be pissed about my tax money being spent on.

2- Have you never heard of US soldiers raping local women ?

You know, I'll bet when you wrote that, you were thinking all "Oh man, I am so nailing this fucking Yank. He's going to try to defend the US military and then I'll have him because I am just so fucking clever." Too bad that's not going to work out today. Yes, US soldiers rape teh shit out of people to. How the fuck does that make the UN non-corrupt? When did I _ever_ argue that the US _wasn't_ corrupt? When did I endorse US actions _anywhere_? I hate the United States government the same way I hate all governments, because they're bodies that exist only through thuggery and violence. Fucking stunning. There's no such thing as a good government, and there's no such thing as a good military. Every military has a shitload of raping, murdering, brutal fucking assholes who are only in the military because it gives them an outlet to rape and kill without getting into too much trouble over it. Way to be on point here, chief. You totally fucking nailed me on this one.

3- China, Cuba, etc on UN councils. Learn how they work, representative from every country get to be in them in turns. That doesn't mean they run them. At the UN, you are bound to find people from nations you disagree with in various commissions. The #1 rule of diplomacy is that you keep talking to these people anyway.

Yes, I know how the fucking UN councils work, shitbreather. I don't know if that "Look how smart I am and how dumb you are" bullshit works in Mrs. Kensington's 6th grade english class, but maybe you should fucking make a valid argument before you start claiming that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Most of the UN councils rotate on a regional basis, so that a European nation will have a seat, as will a South American, as will an Asian, as will a Middle Eastern. The problem is, these are fucking POLICY MAKING boards for the United Nations, and having Cuba/China/Sudan on the HR council is like having a bunch of fucking rapists run a victims outreach program.

And we aren't talking about goddamn policy disagreements. Sudan allows and promotes SLAVERY AND FEMALE FUCKING GENITAL MUTILATION. Not the nice kind that they do in some other Muslim countries, where there's some anesthesia at least, the kind where they take a little girl, forcibly hold her down, dive into her vagina with a sharp piece of glass or a rusty piece of metal, gouge out her clit, and then sew up the fucking gully hole. That's _fucked_, to the point where, if you do it, you should not be allowed to sit on a board whose job it is to dictate Human Fucking Rights Policy to the rest of the fucking world. "#1 rule of diplomacy", suck my fucking cock. What the fuck is the point of it when these nations are NEVER sanctioned or even given a stern talking to? Christ, what are you, 7 fucking years old? "Maybe if we all hold hands and sing, the Sudanese will stop shredding little girl cunt to ribbons". Fuck you.

4- The UN suck, have never done anything good, etc. The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq got rid of all the WMDs. You are aware the US troops hav

Re:The UN? Surely you jest...

[janrinok]

Hello Mr Righteous, I'll assume your from the USA

Nope. I'm from Texas. And down here in the Republic, we know how to use apostrophes.

The apostrophe in the line you quoted is correct - it is an abbreviation of 'I will'. To the vast majority of the world, Texas is only a part of the USA. You might think it a magical place with its own important standing in the world - but to everyone else, it isn't so.

Now, could you try to rewrite your piece without using expletives?/p>

I think that the post that you responded to made some very good points. He didn't say that there was not corruption in the UN. But, as you quite rightly pointed out, there is also corruption in your own government so there is little point in following this particular argument. You criticised other countries for their soldiers' involvement with rape - it was then pointed out that US soldiers (in much the same way as armies from anywhere for that matter) also break the law on occasion, including the offence of rape. You have acknowledged that fact but it doesn't do much to help convince me that your view of the UN is correct because some soldiers wearing the blue beret have committed offences. I'll bet some Texans have broken the law on occasion, but it doesn't seem to have changed your view of your own state so why should anyone think of the UN any differently? We all understand the details of the mutilation that takes place and going into graphic detail does not change the argument. I could probably describe the rape of a young child conducted by someone from , say, Texas in similar graphic detail to show how bad you are. It would be a pointless argument however, which is why I won't use it and why I think that it didn't help your case. UN monitors made it difficult for Saddam to achieve what we wanted to do easily. They did a good job under difficult conditions but didn't achieve everything that they wanted to do because of political interference from both Iraq and some others. It doesn't change the fact that they were one of a series of measures that were used.

Judging by the way that you flew of the handle and returned to the argument with a series of invectives and insults I would say that you are clearly losing this argument. I've been told that everything in Texas is bigger than similar things elsewhere. I might venture to suggest that the claim would also appear to apply to your mouth.

Re:The UN? Surely you jest...

[StealthyRoid]

How to be a douche in four parts. Part 1:

The apostrophe in the line you quoted is correct - it is an abbreviation of 'I will'.

Ohhhh, sorry, but you're straight up fucking wrong. I was criticizing his LACK of an apostrophe in the "I'll assume _your_ from the US". Clearly, the correct word there is "you're", as "your" doesn't make any fucking sense. If you're going to try to play cockfaced grammar Nazi, you should make sure that you're _right_ first, dick.

Part 2:

Now, could you try to rewrite your piece without using expletives?

Fuck no.

Part 3 (in many acts):

He didn't say that there was not corruption in the UN.

He was obviously arguing against my indictment of the United Nations by making the completely unrelated point that the United Stats is corrupt and evil as well. I mean, I can't understand it _for_ you, you have to make it on your own, but that's pretty basic reading comprehension.

But, as you quite rightly pointed out, there is also corruption in your own government so there is little point in following this particular argument.

Wait, so, because there's corruption by a government that I don't endorse, corruption by the UN becomes a moot point? Dude, that's FANTASTIC!!! Next time I go on a raping spree, I'll just be like "But yer honor, there's other rapists too, so throwing me in jail is a moot point." Brilliant!

You criticised other countries for their soldiers' involvement with rape - it was then pointed out that US soldiers (in much the same way as armies from anywhere for that matter) also break the law on occasion, including the offence of rape. You have acknowledged that fact but it doesn't do much to help convince me that your view of the UN is correct because some soldiers wearing the blue beret have committed offences.

You're making the EXACT same assumption that he is, that, because I'm from America, I'm somehow obligated to defend American actions. I'm not. I don't offer US rule of the internet as my alternative to UN control. As I've said before, I'm in favor of a decentralized root DNS structure with a low barrier to entry and upkeep. I think that the US government is a corrupt bunch of fucks, and has been for at least the past 100 years, and I think that the UN is a corrupt bunch of fucks. I've also not only argued against the actions of the UN "peace keepers", but also the actions of the Secretary General and the bureaucracy, so don't make this all about military corruption. The UN is corrupt and evil because it engages in corrupt an evil activities, same as the USFG, and I don't want EITHER party controlling DNS. So either man up and actually argue against a point that I've made, or go back to chilling in the coffee shops, complimenting yourself on your intelligence as you pretend to read a Derrida book hoping the cute emo girl at the counter will notice and think you're all deep and shit.

I'll bet some Texans have broken the law on occasion, but it doesn't seem to have changed your view of your own state so why should anyone think of the UN any differently?

This isn't even an argument. Yes, Texans have done some bad shit, the Texas government has done bad shit, and I wouldn't trust THEM with sole authority over the root DNS system either. GOVERNMENTS in general are evil, corrupt institutions. The fact that I like being a Texan is a cultural thing, not a governmental thing, not a policy endorsement. Seriously, this is one of the dumbest things I've seen someone say in a long time. Your entire argument, to this point, has basically been "Corruption exists everywhere, so you can't criticize anything."

We all understand the details of the mutilation that takes place and going into graphic detail does not change the argument.

No, but maybe it'll fucking point

Why ever retire TLDs?

[iamacat]

Doing so can disrupt hundreds of thousands of businesses and personal domains. Let both .su and .yu remain. Most new sites will probably register under names of present day countries to highlight their local ties anyway.

unreasonable editorial remark

[drmerope]

The current squabbles are petty compared to the diplomatic arguments that TLDs could cause. An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?

The little bit of editorializing in this submission is a little bit too much. I fail to see how making countries directly responsible will depoliticize the process. ICANN, is a flawed organization, but it is an effort to make management of the domain name system independent of governments and technically driven.

The IEEE is not a UN body; Its voting membership, and its activities are a combination of academics and engineers employed by major technology companies. Given this, I find it hard to see how the "surely" remark in the story summary can even be regarded as reasonable.

I for one would prefer a more technical, more independent ICANN--not a less technical, more political ICANN such as is embodied by the sluggish and highly politicized ITU.

UN? Don't make me laugh!

[jmorris42]

> An international body like the UN would be a more appropriate overseer, surely?

What idiot would write such a thing in 2007? A century ago such naive faith in International organizations to settle disputes was commonplace, fifty years ago diehards still believed the inherent contradiction inherent in such organizations could be handwaved away. But now? Now that we have seen each and every International organization fall into disrepute, chaos, corruption or outright evil?

Even previously unquestioned organizations like ISO are proving to be all too easily corrupted. Others, like the UN you wish to hand the greatest achievement of Western Civilization over to, were so flawed in their design they became failed instituitions before the ink was dry on their charters.

Seriously, this isn't a troll or flamebait. Name three achivements of the UN since it's founding. Ok, you in the back that remembered the Korean War being fought under UN auspices. Yea, because the Soviets were off in a sulk for a brief period the UN managed to allow the US (with our usual allies of the UK and the Aussies along with token support from the usual suspects) to fight to a tie, but under no circumstances actually win. And we are STILL mired down there to this day.

Same for the first Gulf War, the UN grudgingly allowed the US to lead our usual allies to solve a problem for everyone else. But I don't seem to recall the UN spearheading either of those efforts, only being convinced to get the hell out of the way.

Just how many more mass graves do we need before you misty eyed 'citizens of the world' realize the US is the leading cause of mass death today. Ask the survivers in Rwanda or Darfur if they believe the UN is a capable fo being a force for good.

No, the UN is a Parliment of Tyrants. Because it was DESIGNED that way. Shocked the new UN "Human Rights" body is as corrupt as the old one? I'm not. Because Tyrants have more votes in both the General Assembly and Security Council, all works of the UN are going to be geared to aid tyranny. Hand the Internet over to China, Cuba, Iran and their ilk? Are you barking mad?

u.n. for sure, yeah

[unity100]

and enter the pitiful medieval squabbles of iran, china, north korea and other brutal regimes to manipulate the domain name system for propagating their own agenda.

im turkish, and im fine with an international company backed by u.s. controlling the domain name registrations, thank you.

A better group? my two cents worth...

[CodeShark]

How about a well defined group within the W3C itself?

The working groups in the W3C seem to do a good job defining standards we can all live with, why not make them the custodians of the standards as well. That way TLDs have some semblance of order and a deprecated TLD can be selectively migrated, etc. with technically competent standards as opposed to politically appointed or "corporate overlorded" individuals as in the current processes.

?? Thoughts ??

Get Rid of TLDs

[RAMMS EIN]

Why don't we just get rid of TLDs altogether? They don't do much besides confusing users and force site operators to register more domains, anyway. We have .orgs that aren't non-profit organizations, country TLDs for sites that have little to do with that country, and on and on. The only valid case I see is that TLDs _sometimes_ can differentiate between different versions of a site tailored for different locations, but even there...you can do that differentiation through other means. Really, if it were up to me, I'd get rid of TLDs.

Re:Puerto Rico (.pr) TLD

[athakur999]

Puerto Rico, though not a country, is still an currently existing political entity. Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union do not exist in any fashion except in history books.

It might be worthwhile to keep .su active

[DaveWick79]

The way things are going over in the current Russia, it might not be a bad idea to hang onto the .su domains. In a couple of years it might be current again.

The overall problem of who is really in control of these things is a curious one. Does a registrar have the ability to sell anything they want once they get on the train as a registrar. What's to keep a registrar from selling domains with any .?? extension and then propagating them over DNS servers worldwide? Is it up to the ISP to determine whether they will allow a DNS request to a certain top level domain, or is this something ICANN has some authority over?

Re:A rose by any other edu or mil name.

[aqk]

Most... uhh, ALL universities in Canada have the .ca TLD, as opposed to those lucky USA "educational institutions" (snicker) such as "Brer-rabbit.edu" or "BoobyJones.edu"...
As well, I'd like to open up my own aqk.mil website. I have an axe to grind.

Wait! Perhaps Osama has first dibs: www.alqaeda.mil

Howcum only USA dorky institutions are allowed .mil or .edu TLDs?
OK, OK.. I know the answer: 'cuz you invented the Internet, etc...
Well, the cat's outa the bag; it's too late now. WE WANT IT!

Re: UN absolutely?

[WilliamX]

.org was NEVER intended to be restricted to non-profit organizations. It was actually the first catch-all TLD, intended for anything that didn't fit well under the other two, but was not restricted in any way to that rule either. There was NEVER any suggestion or rule that .org be restricted to non-profit use. Even when ICANN handed it to the PIR to manage, they specifically included in the contract that it remain a generic open registration TLD.

It is a common misconception among people who have never really been involved in the domain policy arena that .org was supposed to be for non-profits. That was not, and is not, the case.

Re:Apatrides

[Chemisor]

> The problem is that such people, if in trouble, cannot go to "Soviet Union" and ask for shelter

That's not entirely true. Although I am a Soviet citizen, I am also eligible (by birth) for the Russian citizenship, so all I would have to do is go to the embassy and apply for it. The reason I haven't is that it costs a lot of money.

Re:The Palestinian Occupied Territories /have/ a T

[JudgeFurious]

Well then they have a country code for a country that doesn't exist, has never existed, and at their present rate will never exist. Good on them!