Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the star-systems-will-slip-through-your-fingers dept.

The Internet 385

An Anonymous Reader wrote in with a story on the Eweek site, reporting that the Federal Government is going to keep control of the Domain Name System rather than handing it over to ICANN. From the article: "...the United States is committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS, and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS - So what? (5, Insightful)

zoloto (586738) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971030)

And this is a problem how? This is an honest question. The U.S. has had control of the root servers since inception (as far as I have ever known) and things have been running wonderfully since... so what's the issue? We backed out of a plan to hand control over to ICANN because we were concerned? DU-H! Any country as powerful or even close would probably have done the same thing. //here's my solution

Keep one/two root servers in each country based on population of internet users/total population. Really, this is what I could see as being "fair" or "international" as they come in terms of a solution that would benefit everyone. That's a LOT of servers, right? Each country can come up with a solution as to how and what they'll be. Let the other countries make their own DNS servers and agree to everyone just co-operating with each other.

How hard can it be?

U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971038)

So suck it, Euro-fag weenies!

Re:U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS - So what? (4, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971065)

Yep, it is a strategic asset of ever increasing importance. Holding on to it makes sense.

Better be polite about it, of course, but do not let go.

Re:U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS - So what? (5, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971074)

Keep one/two root servers in each country based on population of internet users/total population.

Most countries have servers for their own TLD's (.au in Australia). Come to think of it there is nothing to stop countries with firewalls (Iran, China, Sauda Arabia, etc) from diverting root server traffic to their own root servers. Personally this is the type of control which I would _not_ want my Government to have.

And who should replace it? (4, Insightful)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971082)

Can anyone look at the history of the UN and honestly say that they would be any better, rather than a lot worse? Does anyone want the organization that puts the Sudan and other bloody, human rights violating states on its human rights commission to be the ones to regulate who gets a domain name? I sure don't.

The ITU != the rest of UN (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971141)

Yeah well, the agency within the UN that would administrate the TLDs, should the US release control over them, is the very same agency that made sure that the world has one telephone standard, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

The ITU was founded before the UN was, and oviously, it has very little to do with human rights issues, they just happen to share some organizational structure.

This constant ignorant whining of the "the UN is a worthless piece of garbage" kind, is getting on my nerves. Educate yourself instead of repeating soundbites you heard on the news.

More info here: ITU history [itu.int]

MOD parent up! (-1, Offtopic)

barc0001 (173002) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971193)

Good background info. Thanks

Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (3, Insightful)

mrshowtime (562809) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971195)

"This constant ignorant whining of the "the UN is a worthless piece of garbage" kind, is getting on my nerves" Yeah, tell that to the two million Christians that were brutally slaughtered -by hand- by the lovely, peace-loving muslim north in the Sudan: the U.N. Did nothing. Sure, they may have set up some standards of trade/deplomacy, FOURTY YEARS ago, but have remained constantly corrupt and useless since.

Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (-1, Troll)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971245)

Oh, come on now. Any organization that can hold giant bitching sessions about the U.S. while simultaneously spending all of its money, and then bitch about the U.S. not paying its member dues can't be all bad.

Don't you remmeber, this is Slashdot, News for People who Hate America, Stuff about Hating America.

Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (2, Funny)

Nedd Ludd (802513) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971374)

Slashdot, News for People who Hate America, Stuff about Hating America

Obviously, you haven't been following the news:

"... slashdot.org is an far-right wing Internet news website that posts libelous and defamatory content and is used by Open Source Community members to anonymously post hate speech, death threats, threats to murder and promotes and advocates acts of domestic terrorism within the United States..."

according to Jeff Merkey [merkeylaw.com] . Sounds pretty mainstream American to me.

Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971437)

Well, using the political compass' notation [politicalcompass.org] , I'd put /. on the mid-left on the economic axis (midly regulative, but still promotes the free market), and waaay out to the libertarian side on the other axis. Don't know where that guy is getting his ideas from...

Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971449)

I've made a number of posts that received unabashedly anti-American replies.

Not like "the war in Iraq is bad," more like "you and your country suck"

Not useless (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971276)

The UN may have its problems, but it does succeed sometimes.

Have you ever heard of the World Health Organization, a part of the UN? They are working hard to eradicate polio, which is a terrible disease, and things are looking good so far. [polioeradication.org]

Do you still think the UN has been useless for the last 40 years?

Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971277)

should only be a few seconds before this gets -1 flamebait, but seriously, sometimes I think the best thing would be just to let all the fscking christians and muslims just continue killing eachother off, take care of a lot of the population problems, and give some sensible people a chance at government for a while.

Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971385)

That would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that the people actually fighting are the least likely to die - they are the ones mugging refugees of the food and squatting in the deserted houses.

No, it's the countless refugees that die, who have nothing to do with the fighting.

I have educated myself, YOU have not (2, Insightful)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971269)

The origins of the ITU are meaningless to this discussion because the ITU is now a UN agency. Do you know what that means? It has become part of a world body that has done precious little to actually help the world rather than trying to become a one world government accountable to no one but the rich and powerful.

If I am so ignorant of the real, good accomplishments of the UN, the please post them here. Let's see them.

I am distrustful of the UN because most of its members are completely undemocratic tin horn dictatorships that wouldn't know good government if it bit them in the ass. Actually, they probably would since they have spent so much of their effort to ensure that their people don't have it!

People like you need to just accept the fact that there are a lot of well-informed people who disagree with you based on what they have learned about groups like the UN. The UN has never "kept the peace" anywhere it has ever been, nor has it ever done anything of substance elsewhere. It'll always been a pawn of the richest and most powerful nations because they are the ones with the largest individual populations and the most wealth. The US, EU, Japan, Russia and China account for half of the world's population. Even if we "democratize" the UN, it'll still be controlled by the G8 and China.

Besides, WTF does the ITU setting the standard for telephone systems have to do with anything? Is that supposed to be like some special dispensation from the pope that whitewashes all of the shit caused by the UN around the world? We already have a world standard for the internet in the form of TCP/IP and no one, last I checked, is debating whether DNS should stay as a standard. The only debate here is ownership, and that is a very relevant concern when it is a UN agency that wants to take over ownership.

Re:I have educated myself, YOU have not (5, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971288)

It has become part of a world body that has done precious little to actually help the world

The UN was designed to do one thing: prevent World War III.

It did that exceptionally well. The USSR and the USA never had a huge tank/nuke war in Europe, and their proxy wars were fought with unusual restraint given that each side had nuclear arms.

The fact that the UN has been used to do some other things is a comparative footnote.

Re:I have educated myself, YOU have not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971419)

As someone born in the 40's and surprised to still be alive, +1 insightful.

Re:I have educated myself, YOU have not (1, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971298)

Personally, I'm distrustful of them because the US veto has consistently kept them from being effective. When the #1 threat to world peace and prosperity has a veto on anything you do, your options are pretty limited...

Re:I have educated myself, YOU have not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971312)

I sometimes get the impression the UN is greatly misunderstood. It is more of an international podium and one way you can try and solve disputes between nations. So the standard fare for the UN is many diatribes, and peace mission in places that some nations care enough about to lend troops to the UN for.

Sub organisation of the UN do other things, and are pretty independent to the other politicle cackling above, think forinstance WHO. They are only under the UN I suppose, cause that better facilitates getting these organisations in each nation.

So to put it in other words, you've been mislead by propaganda what the UN really is. It may have been setup under quite nice ideals. But those have little to do with day to day operation of it now, if ever.

Re:I have educated myself, YOU have not (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971327)

If I am so ignorant of the real, good accomplishments of the UN, the please post them here. Let's see them.

No problem. Some googling resulted in this list of UN accomplishments [una-usadanecounty.org] .

Please take some time to read it. There's some pretty good stuff in there, I think.

Some highlights:

5. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.

9. Over 300 international treaties, on topics as varied as human rights conventions to agreements on the use of outer space and seabed.

11. The UN was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.

12. More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

41. Improving global communications Regulated international mail delivery, coordinated use of the radio spectrum, promoted cooperation in assigning positions for stationary satellites, and established international standards for communications, thereby ensuring the unfettered flow of information around the globe.

45. Improving education in developing countries 60% of adults in developing countries can now read and write, and 80 percent of children in these countries attend school.

Re:And who should replace it? (5, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971303)

> Can anyone look at the history of the UN and honestly say that they would be any better, rather than a lot worse?

You'd probably be dead of smallpox, if not all out nuclear war, but hey who cares when you you've got fox news talking points to spread on the web.

I'll get you started on the path to some facts:

The World Health Organization eradicated smallpox. Guess who created WHO? [wikipedia.org]

Playing the "rotating seat" card and claiming an evil conspiracy is pretty weak. The UN members states get representation of some kind, not just, say the US. Internationalism is ugly and messy. There's another country with a horrible human rights record that almost never gets mentioned by the "UN is bad, mmkay" crowd. Guess who? [jatonyc.org] Guess who keeps covering for them in the security council.

Anyway, taking the "I hate stuff and I'm kinda a libertarian" stance on slashdot is a great way to get mod points. Congrats on your +5 post!

Re:And who should replace it? (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971358)

Guess who created WHO?

Cue "Who? WHO!" jokes :)

How hard indeed... (1)

seanvaandering (604658) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971224)

How hard can it be?

Its amazingly easy to divide up something that isn't yours. Its like me telling you how to spend your money, and we all know how thats going to end up.

Re:U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS - So what? (2, Insightful)

Pseudonym (62607) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971248)

Keep one/two root servers in each country based on population of internet users/total population.

Total population? Sure! So that'd be two in China, one in India, and... uhm... about none in the USA.

Re:U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS - So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971282)

cos US is borg.

thank you.

thank you very much.

Re:U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS - So what? (1)

jasonvan (846103) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971325)

Everyone worries about the U.S. government taking control of the Internet but i can tell you, it will never, ever happen. U.S. politics is ruled by getting the vote. All a senator/representative/president are trying to do is get reelected or to keep their party on top, voting for something like control of the worldwide Internet would be political suicide, not to mention the U.N. and just about every other country getting mad. Besides, why fix something that isn't broken? ICANN has tons of power whether it is law or not.

Re:U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS - So what? (1)

floop (11798) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971421)

This is really a non issue since it only effects adoption of IPv6 and possibly the national security of foriegn nations that don't prepare for the loss or tampering of root server records. The root zone has fewer records than your average mom-n-pop ISP manages in any number of zones so an arguement that the US has some special expertise is just silly. See for yourself [internic.net] . The only thing that makes the root servers special is that everone agrees to use them. At any moment, even you could choose not to use the root servers anymore, let alone a country or continent. The only real issues are stability of service and the widespread adoption of IPv6.

CmdrTaco won't let go of anal lube (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971032)

No text really necessary.

Speaks for itself.

Oh, yeah. This is a dupe and there's no reason for the US to let go of it.

Ask yourself this (2, Insightful)

zymano (581466) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971033)

Why does ICANN want the DNS servers ?

Re:Ask yourself this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971062)

*shrug*

To become our new overlords?

Re:Ask yourself this (2, Informative)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971072)

Because ICANN is the follow-up organization to the IANA - the Internet Authority for Assigned Names and Numbers. That's a good part of what DNS is about, isn't it?

I think the real question is "why does the USA want the DNS root servers" (most of them, anyway)?

Re:Ask yourself this (2, Insightful)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971108)

I think the real question is "why does the USA want the DNS root servers" (most of them, anyway)?

Apparently there was an unwritten understanding that ICANN would be able to come up with at least one sensible new TLD before being given anything more important to do.

Re:Ask yourself this (1)

flipper65 (794710) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971113)

Actually I believe this has already been asked and sufficiently answered. There have been no issues with the United States stewardship of the root servers on a technical level.

In this day and age these servers are truly globally important. Unless there is a problem with their management or function I can think of nothing more disruptive to the internet globally than relegating their administration to a global committee.

Re:Ask yourself this (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971127)

Because the USA already has them?

Why give them away if we are doing a darn good job with them already?

Re:Ask yourself this (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971209)

The internet is not America's property.

Re:Ask yourself this (-1, Flamebait)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971229)

Noooooo we only created it.... It's obviously not our property since we created it!! /Please spare me the "By following that logic blah fucking blah posts" //Stupid posts deserve stupid replies

Re:Ask yourself this (1)

smeager (792621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971297)

You are correct that America did create the Internet. To be more specific DARPA in 1966 and developed his plan for ARPANET which became what we know as the Internet. But don't forget, it was a European, Tim Berners-Lee, and others, that created the protocol that became the World Wide Web (WWW). So in reality it does belong to the world. I do believe in the saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it", so things should be left as is, unless they get out of hand, like other things that shall remain nameless.

Re:Ask yourself this (1)

Stelminator (856547) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971319)

I thought Al Gore created it?

Re:Ask yourself this (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971316)

america is where it was created loser so yes it is.

don't like it, use another internet.. oh right..

Re:Ask yourself this (2, Interesting)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971218)

Why would you want the expense and hassle of running this if you don't have to? The point is, ICANN wants it so they can change things.. what do tehy want to change, and how will it benefit you and me, the average user?

Re:Ask yourself this (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971236)

I think the real question is "why does the USA want the DNS root servers" (most of them, anyway)?

It really is not as strategic as some folk think. The only thing that the root does is to hand off to the TLDs. Provided it does that and does not go down and there is no political idiocy there is no real problem.

What some countries are worried by is the possibility that some idiot Congressman looking to court the Florida Cuban or the Israeli lobby vote would stick an ammendment into some critical bill that requires the US to cause domains that they don't like (e.g. .ps or .cu).

I don't think there is a need to worry. Everyone who understands the voluntary nature of the network knows that if any bill of that type did get passed the US would loose whatever theoretical control it has in a New York minute.

Re:Ask yourself this (2, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971216)

Because it is the nature of just about every organization to try and increase its own importance and authority. Then they can demand bigger budgets and whatnot. Just about every organization of any sort tends to do this, whatever its actual purpose is. Discussing why people tend to do this is many thesis papers worth of psychology.

Re:Ask yourself this (1)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971310)

I don't know. Did you see a sign on the front of the bulding?

Re:Ask yourself this (5, Insightful)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971328)

And while we're on the subject...

Why are we suddenly supporting ICANN? Because it's an opportunity to attack the U.S.? Come on, wasn't this the same organization that held meetings on critical issues in Ghana so that critics wouldn't come? (i.e. Let's hold an important meeting on how much we'll let the public participate in ICANN in a country with less than impressive internal stability so the critics will be scared away.)

Sorry, given the choice of ICANN control of root servers and US control of root servers... I'll stick with the current well functioning system. One of the two is subject to political pressure from SOMEBODY.

Pearost. (-1, Troll)

oberondarksoul (723118) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971035)

U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS? Hi, we've met before. Yeah, I know, I was drunk too, but it's all coming back to me now. I'm sorry. It's time to move on.

He who hs the nukes ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971040)

makes the rules.

Re:He who hs the nukes ... (0)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971094)

More like he who invented the internet makes the rules. Sorry, but the internet has become more powerful and destructive than any nuke.

How many man hours are spent in totalitarian countries monitoring and trying to block internet access? More than spent in nuclear espionage... (i'd guess).

Think of Saddam's generals getting e-mails from the U.S. Betcha that made a bunch of people crap themselves... Think of the closed cultures that are suddenly forced to see others (like France). Think of the free flow of ideas.

Whoever controls it (as much as you can control the internet) certainly has inflence on the world.

Re:He who hs the nukes ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971107)

More like he who invented the internet makes the rules.
Al Gore makes the rules?

I'd define it a little differently. (1)

Whyte (65556) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971161)

As long as the Internet continues to follow open and published standards for operation of the root servers, and does not deviate from those standards, ultimately the bulk of that power still lies with the local end-user service provider. They are the ones most ably-situationed to censor content - your coment on totalitarian political units is dead on in this respect.

Has anyone heard of the U.S. abusing this authority for particularistic gain?

Re:He who hs the nukes ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971099)

It doesn't even rhyme [rhymezone.com] .

Seriously though, what's stopping anyone from making free rootserver clones?

ZONK! READ THE DAMN SITE! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971041)

Or quit as an editor. This is ridiculous.

ICANN Won't Get DNS Root Servers [slashdot.org]

Re:ZONK! READ THE DAMN SITE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971281)

Sir,
You are absolutely goddamned right. This is a dupe. In fact, some of the trolls were even clamouring to know when this news would be published even after it hit the front page.

I know this is a dupe and I don't even read Slashdot every day. For goodness' sake, what are these editors even paid for? They constantly miss dupes, never correct the simplest speeling and grammeer(!!one1!) errors in submissions and often add 'editorial' that ought to appear as comments to the main story.

Re:ZONK! READ THE DAMN SITE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971363)

The editors are paid??? WTF, JUNEAU!?

You can take your... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971042)

You can take your "DNS" and shove it up your ass! I'm watching Tivo!!!

AGAIN? (5, Funny)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971055)

That's the second time in the last couple of days the US have decided to hold onto DNS. It's starting to seem like a habit.

Re:AGAIN? (1)

CharonX (522492) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971084)

Odd...
Last time they were asked about it they said:
"We can stop controlling the DNS servers anytime we want to - we just don't want to stop right now."

If you believe everyone plays fair... (2, Interesting)

newsblaze (894675) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971066)

If you believe everyone plays fair, then put servers in other places, but the root servers need to work together. What happens if a government decides its going to play dirty and screw up the whole system? What about physical security? How can you guarantee that if the root servers are spread out across the world? There have been few problems so far and no dirty pool. Leave it as-is unless theres a compelling case to do otherwise.

Re:If you believe everyone plays fair... (5, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971234)

What about physical security? How can you guarantee that if the root servers are spread out across the world?

The root servers are spread out all over the world. It is that, in fact, that guarantees physical security, because the system is physically distributed. There is no central point of failure to attack.

That's rather the point of the Internet.

KFG

Re:If you believe everyone plays fair... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971361)

Welllll, yes and no. The point of the Internet isn't that an add-on like the Domain Name System is decentralized but that the network itself will route packets around any problems. Reliability of communication was a key factor in the design of the underlying routing technology and the TCP/IP protocol suite itself. There's no fixed point of failure that will cause a significant communications breakdown, and that is rather the point of the Internet. Remember that the Domain Name System is just a database layer on top of the underlying protocols, and is just there to make the Web work, really. Packet routing is not dependent upon DNS: I mean, hell, all the root servers could go offline now and the Internet wouldn't even notice. Sure, applications that depend upon domain name resolution would fail, but the Internet couldn't care less. Your browser would still get you to www.google.com, so long as you happen to know that Google's primary IP is 216.239.37.99.

Even at that, the DNS system is far more distributed than you might think. ISPs provide DNS servers as a requirement of being an ISP, and they are (hopefully) kept synchronized to the root database. Root server failure wouldn't cause the Web to come to a screeching halt since when you use DNS you don't talk to the root servers anyway.

I really hate re-runs ;) (0, Redundant)

CharonX (522492) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971067)

As seen yesterday...
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/01/061825 0&tid=103&tid=95 [slashdot.org]

Damn, I really hate re-runs. ;)

Re:I really hate re-runs ;) (0, Redundant)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971121)

Yeah, but this one is in "politics". Tomorrow, it will re-run under "IT". But, that won't be a repeat, either. This is Politics, the other is IT. See the difference? ;)

Could this be like rewatching a movie on DVD? It may have the same cast, but does it have an alternate ending? :P

ICANN (0)

mimayin (752599) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971069)

ICANN I can't! ICANN I can't!

Re:ICANN (4, Funny)

Gherald (682277) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971242)

No, see, that would have been funnier this way:

ICAAN!
US: You can't.
ICAAN!
US: You cannot.
ICAAN!
US: No, You can't!

Again... what's the point of DaddyPants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971075)

If the editors aren't going to read the email sent to it? I'm sure I'm not the only one that emailed about this being a dupe, but I'm also sure a lot of people have given up on reporting dupes by now. It's clear the editors simply don't care about the quality of this site any more or about listening to the subscribers who were actually willing to pay to help support the site.

Re:Again... what's the point of DaddyPants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971101)

Technocrat.net [technocrat.net]

recent slashdot article you may be interested in (1, Informative)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971077)

here [slashdot.org] .

It's no wonder.... (1)

SeventyBang (858415) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971079)

...the rest of the world things we're a bunch of egotistical maniacs.

(Although I will say ICANN hasn't always behaved consistently.)

Yeah, yeah ... we're the world's policeman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971096)

The world bitches about the US being a bully, but when somebody needs some help, who do they call on?

Re:It's no wonder.... (1, Flamebait)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971142)

Yea, because other nation-states give up control of important assets to international bodies.

Look at how well the International Community handled the Suez after Egypt...oh wait, Egypt blocked it from 1954 to '57 and from '67 to '75.

Or look at how well we've done since OPEC gave up control for the production rates of Oil...

Or how cheap and murder free diamonds are since DeBeers stopped hording them...

You left out how peaceful the UN's made the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971290)

no text necessary....

Re:It's no wonder.... (1)

dtungsten (445338) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971432)

This decision is actually partly *because* "the rest of the world [thinks] we're a bunch of egotistical maniacs."

UN Tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971103)

the world is fighting over a global internet tax.

it was a key issue at g8 and the last bilderberg, for those of you who are *actually* paying attention.

Re:UN Tax (0, Flamebait)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971136)

and where would the money from this puported global internet tax go? To the UN? To where?

Re:UN Tax (1)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971386)

To Kofi Annan's kid. Just like the money that was supposed to buy food for hungry Iraqis.

In other News US won't give up Alaska or Texas (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971104)

Where does this stuff come from ?

ICANN wants it, the U.S. Govt says well you have been doing such a fine job in your assigned role we certainly wouldn't want to burden you with extra duties.

Perhaps The U.N. should just administer it directly, I mean they have done an even better job than ICANN over the years.

Re:In other News US won't give up Alaska or Texas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971211)

Umm, the UN? Let me just get this out real quick: no fucking way. Never. Are-you-fucking-kidding-me-NO!

Christ, let one of the most inefficient organizations on the planet take over. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:In other News US won't give up Alaska or Texas (1)

aklix (801048) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971252)

Here's a quick question for those people who think the US government shouldn't control the Root DNS servers: When is the last time that they failed?

Re:In other News US won't give up Alaska or Texas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971348)

Perhaps The U.N. should just administer it directly, I mean they have done an even better job than ICANN over the years.

ICANN has done only one good thing - bitchslap Verisign when Verisign started to redirect DNS queries for non-existent domain names.

Great news! (2, Funny)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971119)

Wonderful news...finally, something WE made remains in America. Imagine that!

I didn't know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971126)

...DNS had oil. You live you learn.

I should submit a new article (5, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971128)

Slashdot: Slashdot Won't Let Go of Dupes

An Anonymous Reader wrote in with a story on the Slashdot site, reporting that the Slashdot editors are going to keep control of the Duping System rather than handing it over to intelligent moderators that would be capable of successfully weeding out repeated stores. From the article: "...Slashdot is committed to taking no action when it sees a repeated story arrive for publication on its website, as this would have the potential to positively impact the effective and efficient operation of Slashdot.org.

extremely arrogant (0, Flamebait)

xiando (770382) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971130)

..and rude of them. That being said, it is very good to read that they will not allow anything that would make domain names suddenly not work - that at least is a very good thing.

Slow news day Mr. Zenke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971134)

Which is it?
  1. You don't read slashdot, so you didn't notice Mr. Pater's posting this yesterday
  2. You couldn't be bothered to search for DNS from the searchbox on the front page before posting
Seriously, I'd be happy to subscribe, but between the lack of slashcode bugfixes (Bugs that have been outstanding for 2+ years) and this... why?

It 's ours.... (1, Interesting)

icedcool (446975) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971145)

So there....

What is the rest of the world gonna cry about it?

It's time for alternate root DNS... (2, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971156)

I think Internet ownership pretty much ends at the borders. Perhaps it's time for alternate root DNS? Sounds a lot like a job for the UN. Sure they'd probably fuck it up with even more politics than US ownership, but it still sounds like a UN project.

LEt's re-cap. (0, Flamebait)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971152)

I'm not American. I have no personal interest in this staying in America... however.

What's the benefit to turning it over to ICANN? How will this benefit me or the internet at large?

As far as I can tell, all ICANN has done is fuck up DNS with stupid new root zones, and waste millions of dollars on useless meetings.

Why on earth would I want ICANN running the root zone? So they can fuck up DNS even more, with even less resistance?

Ob futurama (1)

ajb2718 (842302) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971163)

I'm going to make my own internet with blackjack and hookers, now that I think of it forget the internet.

Correct My Understanding- (3, Interesting)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971167)

My understanding is thus:

  • root nameservers [wikipedia.org] are controlled by the private companies that host them (NASA, VeriSign, Cogent, US DoD, ...)
  • ICANN [wikipedia.org] keeps the official registry of names; the private companies with the nameservers decides to go along with ICANN's registry, but is not legally required to do so
  • ICANN has one root name server, but only one
  • the private companies have, in the past, rebuked ICANN - in particular, ICANN asked them to install specific private keys and to be granted root access; the companies said (basically) to take a hike
  • Country-coded TLD's are not managed by ICANN; somebody else does that. (yes..?)


This is just my understanding of the situation, and it probably has errors. That said, I've not once seen a good plain language [communitywiki.org] explanation of how this all works, and what the actual powers and obligations are. This is my understanding of what an IETF regular told me.

Neither the US or ICANN actually determines what goes into the root name servers: It's just by convenience and general agreement (but not obligation) that the root nameservers decide to humour ICANN, and let them maintain the list of names. There is no law or contract that says they have to do anything that ICANN says.

Congress doesn't control this, and never did, if I understand right.

Please correct my understanding; I'm sure at least some of this is wrong.

Paul Vixie really controls it... (5, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971265)

Basically, the identities of the root nameservers are defined by the contents of the root hints files in the nameserver software used by every company and ISP on the planet. If a release of BIND comes out and it has a certain IP address in its root hints, then that's what the people using that release of BIND will use. If Windows Server 2010 uses a different IP address, people using that nameserver will get that root server instead.

So, most of the big nameservers out there are using BIND, with dedicated Windows shops running AD or running BIND on Windows and everyone sane using UNIX, it's really up to Paul Vixie at ISC. So long as he plays ball with the Commerce Department, nobody needs to get hurt...

the devil you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971203)

Given ICANNs performance and reputation, and their unique position, I'll take the DoC over ICANN any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Yawn.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971231)

Nothing to see here, move along

FreeDNS (3, Interesting)

camcorder (759720) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971250)

Time for an organisation to come up with FreeDNS. With enough cooperation, it's not impossible to bring FreeDNS networks. It might seem utopia but as in any other thing, having an alternative is always better than monopoly.

Stuck record? (1)

magpie (3270) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971261)

Am I alone in comming to the conclusion the the eds are realy not checking stuff.

Oh yeah the refence about is a refence to a very old media distrobution methord.

So I can't speel, I am lsydexic

I know! (2, Interesting)

BlackMesaLabs (893043) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971284)

They want to keep the DNS so they can justify the new internet tax!

Oh, snap! OT III! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12971311)

This comment contained copyrighted text and was removed at the request of the copyright owner [slashdot.org] under the terms of the DMCA.

The government doesn't control DNS (3, Informative)

newsblaze (894675) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971315)

If the government controlled DNS, it would be completely screwed up and the porn sites would be deleted. Also, the CAN-SPAM legislation would not have been necessary. They would just delete spammers.

It seems like (5, Insightful)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 9 years ago | (#12971390)

most of the opposition is knee-jerk and FUD. Like the "evil Bushies" are going to take away your pr0n collection.

(insert rolling eyes emoticon here)

I think the US government is well aware how dangerous the Internet and the flow of information across it is to its enemies. Iran and company can only be ever destabilized by the Internet and cutting themselves off completely will leave them behind more and more. Opening up access will accellerate disaffection in those nations more and more. Either way, the days of these totalitarians is numbered.

Yet supposedly the US government is suddenly going to do all sorts of nasty things with their control of the root servers.

I doubt Microsoft, IBM, General Motors, CitiBank, etc. would put up with that nor would any of the other many thousands of businesses and in short order, their money would do the talking to congressmen.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?