Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government United States Networking Politics

U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS 385

Posted by Zonk
from the star-systems-will-slip-through-your-fingers dept.
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..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS

Comments Filter:
  • by zoloto (586738) * on Saturday July 02, 2005 @07:43PM (#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?
    • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2012@virtual-estates.net> on Saturday July 02, 2005 @07:49PM (#12971065) Homepage
      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.

    • by MichaelSmith (789609) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @07:50PM (#12971074) Homepage Journal
      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.

    • by ShatteredDream (636520) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @07:52PM (#12971082) Homepage
      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 @08:05PM (#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.

        More info here: ITU history [itu.int]
        • "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.
          • Not useless (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            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?

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02, 2005 @11:11PM (#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.
          • by flubbergust (818863) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @11:39PM (#12971992) Journal
            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.
            • by Zak3056 (69287) * on Sunday July 03, 2005 @12:26AM (#12972141) Journal
              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?

              • by Anonymous Coward

                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".

                What you Republicans don't seem to understand is

          • The UN is often outright anti-Christian.

            Christians are persecuted in Nigeria too (sometimes burned and beheaded) - but the UN won't even publicize that either.

            The UN is anti-Christian and anti-American in many ways.

            If we complain about it - we are called bigots.
        • 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.
            • Really? I always thought that the fact that if they did go nuclear, there wouldn't be enough left of either side to say they "won". I'm not saying the UN hasn't done other things, but saying it is soley responsible for the cold war esclating isn't quite right.
              • I always thought that the fact that if they did go nuclear, there wouldn't be enough left of either side to say they "won".

                Depends on when and at what scale. For instance, nuking Afghanistan and Vietnam likely would not have resulted in nuking the USSR or the USA.

                Heck, it's entirely possible that, sans UN, the USSR and the USA would have traded nukes a few at a time at first--and by "at first" I mean "during or before the Korean war."

                And let's not forget that the main reason the Cold War didn't heat up
            • The UN is the world's last best hope for peace.

              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.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02, 2005 @08:52PM (#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.

        • made sure that the world has one telephone standard

          ...um ... but there *isn't* one telephone standard. There are actually several telephone standards, with converters at the boundaries. Digial voice encoding has multiple standards. Ring-back has multiple standards. I'm not sure, but I think ringing voltage has multiple standards. Good gravy, even the number of digits in a phone number isn't standard.

          Maybe you meant cell phone standards?? Oh wait...

          This should have been modded "+1 funny", it sure mad

        • This constant ignorant whining of the "the UN is a worthless piece of garbage"

          What nonsense! Leaving all of the politics out of it, the UN *is* a worthless piece of garbage - bloated, elitist, corrupt, bureaucratic, useless, and ineffective. I've been UN-watching since the fifties, and anyone who thinks that today's UN *isn't* garbage and is more than just a shell of its former self is the one who needs to educate himself and gain some perspective.

      • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @08:48PM (#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!
        • Guess who created WHO?

          Cue "Who? WHO!" jokes :)
        • "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."

          Well, the UN didn't end the Cold War and didn't stop the US/USSR from having a nuclear war.

          The US/USSR stopped themselves from having a nuclear war. The UN didn't stop Korean 50-53, they didn't stop the Suez Crisis, they didn't solve the Israel/Arab wars, they didn't stop the Cuban Missile Crisis, the UN didn't tell the US/USSR to have the SALT I/II treaties,
          • The effect that the UN has had is not necessarily directly measurable. How do you measure the amount of goodwill and good relations that the UN has fostered simply by bringing representatives together to meet?
    • 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.
    • 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.

    • And this is a problem how?

      Um, it's supposed to be distributed. If the US retains control of all the root servers then the US retains control of the Internet. If the US is ever turned into "Lake US" by the "$TODAYS threat" what happens to the rest of the world's Internet?

      It allows the US to retain that thing they seem to think they have a fundamental right to - control over the whole world.

      It is also a profitable exercise. It forces more and more data to pass through the US. They can charge $$

  • Ask yourself this (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zymano (581466)
    Why does ICANN want the DNS servers ?
    • Re:Ask yourself this (Score:3, Informative)

      by slavemowgli (585321)
      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)?
      • 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.
      • 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 (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mindstrm (20013)
        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?
      • 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 tha

    • by cowscows (103644)
      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.
    • by Wavicle (181176) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @08:52PM (#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.
    • When you put them all together they transform into the Arc of the Covenant.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02, 2005 @07:45PM (#12971041)
    Or quit as an editor. This is ridiculous.

    ICANN Won't Get DNS Root Servers [slashdot.org]
  • AGAIN? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hope Thelps (322083) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @07:47PM (#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.
    • 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, 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.
    • by kfg (145172) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @08:27PM (#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
      • 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 laye
  • ...the rest of the world things we're a bunch of egotistical maniacs.

    (Although I will say ICANN hasn't always behaved consistently.)
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • by ravenspear (756059) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @08:02PM (#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.
    • Slashdot: Slashdot Far From Dupe-Free

      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
  • by LionKimbro (200000) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @08:12PM (#12971167) Homepage
    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.
    • 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...
    • If the root server operators didn't listen to ICANN, they probably wouldn't be root server operators for very much longer.

      Doesn't ICANN already have de facto control of DNS anyway? I don't hear of much Department of Commerce interference with its operation.
  • FreeDNS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by camcorder (759720) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @08:32PM (#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.
    • we already have interNIC and others. the main problem is it would require millions of people working together to do it (or a few determined sysadmins, i would say maybe cox, comcast, and roadrunner/aol switching would do it, but that would never happen)
      • ya aol already has their own dns they call it aol keywords for websites and screen names for messaging.

        Problem is that fragmentation in the namespace means that resources and persons would no longer be universally accessible. Fine for a big monopoly trying to freeze out the competition. Not great for the rest of us.
  • I know! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BlackMesaLabs (893043)
    They want to keep the DNS so they can justify the new internet tax!
  • by newsblaze (894675) * on Saturday July 02, 2005 @08:51PM (#12971315) Homepage Journal
    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

  • It seems like (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suitepotato (863945) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @09:09PM (#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.
  • Mugabe! (Score:4, Funny)

    by PHAEDRU5 (213667) <instascreed@@@gmail...com> on Saturday July 02, 2005 @09:40PM (#12971508) Homepage
    Now there's a man who's demonstrated a hard-charging, can-do, UN un-criticized attitude.

    Just the man for the job.

    I just can't understand the US reticence.
    • While having Mugabe in charge would be damn scary, having Bush at the controls of the resources of a nation like the US isn't particularly reassuring either. I'll agree having Mugabe in charge of the US would be enough to make me start building that underground bunker though.
      • So, here I am in GA, 6+ years later.

        No Islamofascists on the horizon. Saddam gone. House of Saud replacing its ambassador. Blue skies. Pinot Grigiot plentiful. Hmmmm.

        (Reassured sigh.)
  • by Rick and Roll (672077) on Saturday July 02, 2005 @10:03PM (#12971597)
    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.
  • ...I had misread it as "DNF", and wondered what could be Broussard's excuse this time.
  • by gothamboy (699451) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @12:04AM (#12972079)
    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.

      Got [wikipedia.org] ya [wikipedia.org]

      .
  • The U.S. won't "let them go"? Are the servers trying to escape?
  • Taking sides (Score:3, Insightful)

    by arodland (127775) on Sunday July 03, 2005 @03:10AM (#12972610)
    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 :)

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries

Working...