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..."
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.
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.
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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday July 02 2005, @07:05PM (#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.
"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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday July 02 2005, @10:11PM (#12971866)
Yeah, tell that to the two million Christians that were brutally slaughtered
Funny you should mention the Christians. They themselves have a stunning record of peaceful behaviour: The crusades, the Inquisition, today's USA.
Did you think that pointing out that two million Christians died would garner you anymore sympathy than pointing out that two million people died? Who the hell cares that they were Christians? Personally, the less intolerant, monotheistic, war mongering religions on the planet the better. Christians, Muslims, Jews -- all guilty.
Seeing two million people slaughtered is awful, don't weaken your point by attempting to back it up with an emotional response.
Um, that's wrong. Constantinople wasn't taken by the Muslims (or to be exact, the Turks) until 1453. The Crusades began in 1284. The Turks didn't invade "for no reason" any more than Europe invaded the New World "for no reason."
Agreed. When you look at the basic principles behind all these religions - or in fact, most religions -- for the most part you find common sense rules urging peace and respect for your fellow man.
It's when one of the spiritual "leaders" of one of these groups decides to abuse their position to promote their own twisted politics that you get genocide and abuse that goes against the basic prinicples of those religions. I suspect that a lot of people claiming to be Christians these days would make Jesus sic
You know, UN is not some strange foreign country but more like a democratic assembly. In that assembly all the countries around the world participate, like USA, and there is the Security council in which USA has a veto.
USA choose not to make a big deal about Sudan. USA CHOOSE NOT TO MAKE A BIG DEAL.
Don't blame UN when you own government didn't do shit. You are just as guilty as the rest of us so don't try to make it seem like USA are some kind of Saint that only do good deeds and protect the weak against those who wants to inflict harm on them (especially if they are Christian). USA have destroyed a whole bunch of Christian democracys, like Chile and Guatemala, and bombed and killed countless of other innocent people. I don't think that is in the bible that its ok to do that.
And 2 millions? You pulled that out of your ass? Your own government (Yes the US of A with Bush as president) said that its only around 181000. So Muslims are now just evil? What about the new report from Iraq in which Iraq UN ambassador said that a relative of his were murdered by the peace-loving Christians in the US marine corps? That boy wanted to help you and you repaid him with a bullet in his neck.
And don't make it into some kind of religious war because its not. Learn first what the conflict is about BEFORE you start to make wild claims.
And your claim that UN is corrupt. SIGH. You know, USA is a big part of UN so if UN is corrupt then USA is partly to blame for it. Once again, UN is not some strange mythical organization. black helicopters flying around, that wants to destroy humankind and USA and Christians in particular.
I have nothing against USA, in fact I love that country and I love especially one American girl more than anything in this worl. I do however something against you in person. So just because someone is criticizing you, its not critique against democracy or freedom or USA or something like that, its because they just don't like what YOU say.
Don't blame UN when you own government didn't do shit.
i.e. when the US acts without the backing of the UN, we're the big, evil bully. However, when the US DOESN'T act when the UN is disinterested, we're the big, evil, unfeeling nation who could care less about the plight of the rest of the world. Right?
i.e. when the US acts without the backing of the UN, we're the big, evil bully.
Invading a defenceless country and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians makes you an "evil bully".
However, when the US DOESN'T act when the UN is disinterested, we're the big, evil, unfeeling nation who could care less about the plight of the rest of the world.
Being a member of the UN security council and blocking attempts to intervene makes you and "evil bully".
Plus it's generally anti-christian, pro drug and pro gay (or at least has a 'not that there's anything wrong with that' attitude). Not what I would call far right at all.
Not complaining mind you, makes for good discussions, but just can't believe someone would write a story saying Slashdot is far right.
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 h
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.
This cliche has achieved near universal acceptance because of sheer repetition; it has been repeated so often that people assume it must be true. However, only by some tortured application of Orwellian "Newspeak" can the UN be referred to as a "peace" organization.
During the summer of 1945, Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., one of America's foremost scholars in the field of international law, prepared an analysis of the UN Charter. His learned appraisal and cogent remarks fly in the face of popular platitudes and conventional "wisdom" concerning the "revered" document. Ambassador Clark's examination led him to conclude that the Charter "is a war document not a peace document," and that it "is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace." The Ambassador noted:
[T]here is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war.33
Moreover, said Ambassador Clark,
Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.34
The Ambassador's predictions were soon borne out -- first in Korea and then in Vietnam, the first two wars America fought with UN involvement and the only two which the United States has ever failed to win.35
Dr. J. B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and one of America's outstanding scholars on Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, was but one of many leading Americans who exposed the UN-as-peace-dove myth. Dr. Matthews was not one to mince words. "I challenge the illusion that the UN is an instrument of peace," he said. "It could not be less of a cruel hoax if it had been organized in Hell for the sole purpose of aiding and abetting the destruction of the United States."36 Senator William Langer (R-ND), one of only two senators with enough courage and foresight to vote against the UN Charter, said "I feel from the bottom of my heart that the adoption of the Charter... will mean perpetuating war."37
The UN's monstrous war against the people of Katanga should forever lay to rest any reference to the UN as a peace organization. The UN and its supporters may persist in the charade of calling the UN's warmaking powers "peacemaking" or "peacekeeping," but no sensible person of goodwill should give the slightest credence to such patently deceitful abuse of language.
I don't recall the UN ever stepping in and doing anything. My professor concurs.
set OFFTOPIC=1 Like what? Deploy space based hunter killer robots that shot thermal rays from orbit to destroy all the nukes on earth? Ya, you're right they didn't do that.
They did however provide a forum for the discussion of disagreements, and a structure within for things like the ABM treaty et all to exist in international law (oops that's a dirty word).
It provided a forum where the non-superpowers could extert some peer
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday July 02 2005, @07:52PM (#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.
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...
Actually world peace is not threatened very hard these days. The three major world powers (USA/China/USSR) all have similiar goals and are achieving them economically. They find economic warfare has better PR, lower costs, and is more effective then troops. The single thing hobbling the Un
> 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!
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.
Anonymous Reads writes: Despite efforts by a coalition of the willing and intelligent moderators, Slashdot refuses to relenquish control of its Duping System - capable of successfully weeding out repeat stories - to the aforementioned group. Says a Slashdot source: "...Slashdot is committed to taking no action when it sees a repeated story arrive for publication..." When asked about the reason for this, our source commented that efficiency and effectiveness would not s
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.
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...
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.
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.
If the government controlled DNS, it would be completely screwed up and the porn sites would be deleted
Not necessarily, consider the Australian government which has internet content rules and also runs the ".cx" domain. Christmas Island is an Austalian territory, mostly known for large tree climbing land crabs and being a dodgy business registration/money laundering bank location, and a place to lock up refugees and pretend they are not in your juristiction. Porn and gambling make a lot of money for so
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.
is the decision that will result in all words up to four letters being TLD's.
Then someone can finally register a.fart domain, and we can declare all of the domain names officially taken.
The Internet was funded with US taxpayer dollars and has been open to the world to use without financial consideration or gratitude for the research money that went into it.
If the US Govt wants to run the root servers that is purely a domestic US issue.
Like the GPS system (also US taxpayer financed in the billions and used by the world without gratitude or financial consideration), if people in other countries or Americans don't like the US govt administering it, go build your own.
Like the GPS system (also US taxpayer financed in the billions and used by the world without gratitude or financial consideration), if people in other countries or Americans don't like the US govt administering it, go build your own.
LOL, so because a protocol has been 'invented' somewhere (by committees often containing people from all over the world), you can not build a new network, because you use building blocks?
What an incredibly gross distortion of what I wrote. First off, TCP/IP was not invented by a committee "containing people from all over the world." It was invented in the 1970s by Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn. Nor did I say that you could not build a new network because it used such building blocks. But you can't paste your computers onto the Internet and say "we built a network!" No, you didn't. You just attached to an existing one.
Okay, I'll extend your statement, and say that the US has never build any roads or buildings, because they have been invented in other places.
That's not an extension of my statement. I wrote: "You just attached computers to an existing network using the building blocks (TCP/IP, Ethernet, etc.) which were invented in the U.S. at U.S. taxpayer expense." The U.S. didn't attach roads to the ones in Europe. We built a complete, standalone system of roads. Every road in Europe could be shut down and it would not affect traffic flow in the U.S.
Also the US has never build any computers or networks, because those too have been invented outside of the US.
Your ignorance is showing. The Atanasoff-Berry Computer was the world's first electronic digital computer. It was built by John Vincent Atanasoff and Clifford Berry at Iowa State University during 1937-42. Timesharing, the concept of linking a large numbers of users to a single computer via remote terminals, was developed at MIT in the late 50s and early 60s. In 1962, Paul Baran of RAND developed the idea of distributed, packet-switching networks. ARPANET, which later became the Internet, went online in 1969. So, computers were invented in the U.S. So was networking. And so was the Internet.
Again, you don't have to invent something to build an example of it. But neither can you claim that you built a network if all you built is just an extension to an existing network.
As root servers are computer too, the US has never build any root servers either.
Again, you don't seem to grasp the argument. I didn't say that the EU could not build a network because they did not invent the concept or protocols. But simply hooking into a network built in the U.S. does not constitute building a network.
Come on, now. I don't like it any more than anyone else when the government runs my life, but ICANN is one bunch of slobs that I wouldn't trust with a water gun. I don't see any reason for slashdot to have its feelings hurt so much:)
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly, and that can't stand. I propose, instead, that the servers be placed under the control of Robert Mugabe. It solves two problems: 1) They're no longer in the U.S., so you're happy. 2) It shows the difference between "invented here" syndrome and a real egotistical maniac.
U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS - So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS - So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better be polite about it, of course, but do not let go.
Parent
outsource it to india (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS - So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
And who should replace it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Parent
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny you should mention the Christians. They themselves have a stunning record of peaceful behaviour: The crusades, the Inquisition, today's USA.
Did you think that pointing out that two million Christians died would garner you anymore sympathy than pointing out that two million people died? Who the hell cares that they were Christians? Personally, the less intolerant, monotheistic, war mongering religions on the planet the better. Christians, Muslims, Jews -- all guilty.
Seeing two million people slaughtered is awful, don't weaken your point by attempting to back it up with an emotional response.
Parent
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:3, Informative)
Your grasp of history is tenuous at best.
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:3, Insightful)
It's when one of the spiritual "leaders" of one of these groups decides to abuse their position to promote their own twisted politics that you get genocide and abuse that goes against the basic prinicples of those religions. I suspect that a lot of people claiming to be Christians these days would make Jesus sic
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't blame UN when you own government didn't do shit. You are just as guilty as the rest of us so don't try to make it seem like USA are some kind of Saint that only do good deeds and protect the weak against those who wants to inflict harm on them (especially if they are Christian). USA have destroyed a whole bunch of Christian democracys, like Chile and Guatemala, and bombed and killed countless of other innocent people. I don't think that is in the bible that its ok to do that.
And 2 millions? You pulled that out of your ass? Your own government (Yes the US of A with Bush as president) said that its only around 181000. So Muslims are now just evil? What about the new report from Iraq in which Iraq UN ambassador said that a relative of his were murdered by the peace-loving Christians in the US marine corps? That boy wanted to help you and you repaid him with a bullet in his neck.
And don't make it into some kind of religious war because its not. Learn first what the conflict is about BEFORE you start to make wild claims.
And your claim that UN is corrupt. SIGH. You know, USA is a big part of UN so if UN is corrupt then USA is partly to blame for it. Once again, UN is not some strange mythical organization. black helicopters flying around, that wants to destroy humankind and USA and Christians in particular.
I have nothing against USA, in fact I love that country and I love especially one American girl more than anything in this worl. I do however something against you in person. So just because someone is criticizing you, its not critique against democracy or freedom or USA or something like that, its because they just don't like what YOU say.
Parent
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:5, Insightful)
i.e. when the US acts without the backing of the UN, we're the big, evil bully. However, when the US DOESN'T act when the UN is disinterested, we're the big, evil, unfeeling nation who could care less about the plight of the rest of the world. Right?
Parent
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:3, Insightful)
Invading a defenceless country and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians makes you an "evil bully".
Being a member of the UN security council and blocking attempts to intervene makes you and "evil bully".
What you Republicans don't seem to understand is
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:3, Insightful)
Not complaining mind you, makes for good discussions, but just can't believe someone would write a story saying Slashdot is far right.
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupidity is not limited to any geographical area of the world, unfortunately.
I have educated myself, YOU have not (Score:3, Insightful)
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 h
Re:I have educated myself, YOU have not (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
The UN is the world's best hope for peace? Yeah... (Score:4, Informative)
This cliche has achieved near universal acceptance because of sheer repetition; it has been repeated so often that people assume it must be true. However, only by some tortured application of Orwellian "Newspeak" can the UN be referred to as a "peace" organization.
During the summer of 1945, Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., one of America's foremost scholars in the field of international law, prepared an analysis of the UN Charter. His learned appraisal and cogent remarks fly in the face of popular platitudes and conventional "wisdom" concerning the "revered" document. Ambassador Clark's examination led him to conclude that the Charter "is a war document not a peace document," and that it "is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace." The Ambassador noted:
[T]here is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war.33
Moreover, said Ambassador Clark,
Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.34
The Ambassador's predictions were soon borne out -- first in Korea and then in Vietnam, the first two wars America fought with UN involvement and the only two which the United States has ever failed to win.35
Dr. J. B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and one of America's outstanding scholars on Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, was but one of many leading Americans who exposed the UN-as-peace-dove myth. Dr. Matthews was not one to mince words. "I challenge the illusion that the UN is an instrument of peace," he said. "It could not be less of a cruel hoax if it had been organized in Hell for the sole purpose of aiding and abetting the destruction of the United States."36 Senator William Langer (R-ND), one of only two senators with enough courage and foresight to vote against the UN Charter, said "I feel from the bottom of my heart that the adoption of the Charter
The UN's monstrous war against the people of Katanga should forever lay to rest any reference to the UN as a peace organization. The UN and its supporters may persist in the charade of calling the UN's warmaking powers "peacemaking" or "peacekeeping," but no sensible person of goodwill should give the slightest credence to such patently deceitful abuse of language.
Parent
Re:I have educated myself, YOU have not (Score:3, Insightful)
set OFFTOPIC=1
Like what? Deploy space based hunter killer robots that shot thermal rays from orbit to destroy all the nukes on earth? Ya, you're right they didn't do that.
They did however provide a forum for the discussion of disagreements, and a structure within for things like the ABM treaty et all to exist in international law (oops that's a dirty word).
It provided a forum where the non-superpowers could extert some peer
Re:I have educated myself, YOU have not (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:I have educated myself, YOU have not (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually world peace is not threatened very hard these days. The three major world powers (USA/China/USSR) all have similiar goals and are achieving them economically. They find economic warfare has better PR, lower costs, and is more effective then troops. The single thing hobbling the Un
Re:Mod down flamebait. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah fuck it... you ain't listening anyways.
Re:And who should replace it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Parent
Re:U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS - So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Funny)
Especially when you read the wrong column.
Asia: 34%
North America: 24.9%
ZONK! READ THE DAMN SITE! (Score:5, Insightful)
ICANN Won't Get DNS Root Servers [slashdot.org]
AGAIN? (Score:5, Funny)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/01/061825 (Score:5, Informative)
I should submit a new article (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Four Hours Later... (Score:3, Funny)
Anonymous Reads writes: Despite efforts by a coalition of the willing and intelligent moderators, Slashdot refuses to relenquish control of its Duping System - capable of successfully weeding out repeat stories - to the aforementioned group. Says a Slashdot source: "...Slashdot is committed to taking no action when it sees a repeated story arrive for publication..." When asked about the reason for this, our source commented that efficiency and effectiveness would not s
Correct My Understanding- (Score:4, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Parent
FreeDNS (Score:3, Interesting)
The government doesn't control DNS (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The government doesn't control DNS (Score:3)
Not necessarily, consider the Australian government which has internet content rules and also runs the ".cx" domain. Christmas Island is an Austalian territory, mostly known for large tree climbing land crabs and being a dodgy business registration/money laundering bank location, and a place to lock up refugees and pretend they are not in your juristiction. Porn and gambling make a lot of money for so
It seems like (Score:5, Insightful)
(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.
Mugabe! (Score:4, Funny)
Just the man for the job.
I just can't understand the US reticence.
All I want... (Score:3, Funny)
One little reminder (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One little reminder (Score:3, Informative)
Like the GPS system (also US taxpayer financed in the billions and used by the world without gratitude or financial consideration), if people in other countries or Americans don't like the US govt administering it, go build your own.
Got [wikipedia.org] ya [wikipedia.org]
.Re:One little reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
What an incredibly gross distortion of what I wrote. First off, TCP/IP was not invented by a committee "containing people from all over the world." It was invented in the 1970s by Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn. Nor did I say that you could not build a new network because it used such building blocks. But you can't paste your computers onto the Internet and say "we built a network!" No, you didn't. You just attached to an existing one.
Okay, I'll extend your statement, and say that the US has never build any roads or buildings, because they have been invented in other places.
That's not an extension of my statement. I wrote: "You just attached computers to an existing network using the building blocks (TCP/IP, Ethernet, etc.) which were invented in the U.S. at U.S. taxpayer expense." The U.S. didn't attach roads to the ones in Europe. We built a complete, standalone system of roads. Every road in Europe could be shut down and it would not affect traffic flow in the U.S.
Also the US has never build any computers or networks, because those too have been invented outside of the US.
Your ignorance is showing. The Atanasoff-Berry Computer was the world's first electronic digital computer. It was built by John Vincent Atanasoff and Clifford Berry at Iowa State University during 1937-42. Timesharing, the concept of linking a large numbers of users to a single computer via remote terminals, was developed at MIT in the late 50s and early 60s. In 1962, Paul Baran of RAND developed the idea of distributed, packet-switching networks. ARPANET, which later became the Internet, went online in 1969. So, computers were invented in the U.S. So was networking. And so was the Internet.
Again, you don't have to invent something to build an example of it. But neither can you claim that you built a network if all you built is just an extension to an existing network.
As root servers are computer too, the US has never build any root servers either.
Again, you don't seem to grasp the argument. I didn't say that the EU could not build a network because they did not invent the concept or protocols. But simply hooking into a network built in the U.S. does not constitute building a network.
Parent
Isn't the title to this story misleading? (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking sides (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ask yourself this (Score:3, Informative)
I think the real question is "why does the USA want the DNS root servers" (most of them, anyway)?
Re:Ask yourself this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ask yourself this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
It's time for alternate root DNS... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If you believe everyone plays fair... (Score:5, Informative)
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
Parent
Re:ICANN (Score:5, Funny)
ICAAN!
US: You can't.
ICAAN!
US: You cannot.
ICAAN!
US: No, You can't!
Parent
Re:It's no wonder.... (Score:3, Insightful)