U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS 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..."
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?
Ask yourself this (Score:2, Insightful)
ZONK! READ THE DAMN SITE! (Score:5, Insightful)
ICANN Won't Get DNS Root Servers [slashdot.org]
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.
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.
And who should replace it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ask yourself this (Score:2, Insightful)
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:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ask yourself this (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Ask yourself this (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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 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.
Not useless (Score:2, Insightful)
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:I have educated myself, YOU have not (Score:1, Insightful)
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!
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.
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.
Re:And who should replace it? (Score:2, Insightful)
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, nor the Convention Forces in Europe Treaty or the reduction in tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
To claim the UN stopped a nuclear war is foolish, the Nuclear Powers - US/USSR/UK/France/China are the ones who stopped nuclear wars from happening.
Re:It's no wonder.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:1, Insightful)
True. They also did nothing when Americans killed untold number of Vietnamese, and also when Americans bombed unreal amount of countries.
Bad UN, bad UN...
As someone already explained, UN != ITU. If you ever worked in telecoms, and had an account at TIES, you'd know ITU != UN in any way...
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:2, Insightful)
Quit funny. I live in a country that has been under emormous pressure from "international community" to admit doing wrong things, blah, blah. And they did bad things.
And I will always give shit to my govt/country when they do something I don't think is right. at the same time, I see many Americans not being able to handle any comments about how their GOVERNMENT might be doing something wrong.
What's that? Expect others to confirm when they're doing something dodgy, but never expect to be asked to do the same when your govt is in question?
Also called as 'double standards', 'hypocrisy', etc.
Re:Mod down flamebait. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah fuck it... you ain't listening anyways.
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: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.
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
One little reminder (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupidity is not limited to any geographical area of the world, unfortunately.
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:1, Insightful)
The UN was asking for countries to commit aid and troops to Darfur, but no one wanted to go...it was an African problem.
The UN would love to send a peace keeping mission to Darfur, they just can't convince any member nations to commit troops and money.
Isn't the title to this story misleading? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have educated myself, YOU have not (Score:2, Insightful)
Have I suddenly lost the ability for reading comprehension, or did I just see someone state that we should be saying "Thank you for refraining from committing mass murder?"
As annoying as Dan Simpson [idrewthis.org] may be at times, I think he makes a very valid point that in a civilized society, there are certain requirements basic enough that meeting them is not praiseworthy. Or as he put it:
"Boy, Bob is a wonderful human being! Today he was really mad about something, but he didn't beat anyone to death with a hammer!"
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 pressure on the US and Soviets.
It provided a number of opertunties for cooperation that lead to greater mutual understanding which arguably lead to the eventual thawing of the cold war. It's hard to consider hte man you were sitting across the table at a UNICEF meeting discussing how to vacinate children in the developing nations to be a blood thirthy enemy.
The UN, like most diplomatic insterments, is a tool of subtly. Just because you don't see it invading countries does not mean it has no long term result. You don't see erosion either, but you don't deny it exists.
set OFFTOPIC=0
The DNS system should be decentralized. The true amount of power invested in it is small (you can turn off the internet for non-clued people). Can anyone see a situation where this is a good thing?)
On the other hand the symbolism of turning over the DNS system to an international group would be striking. But it seems the US isn't serious about closing the rifts that it created after all.
Pity.
Min
Taking sides (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right, after all, everything wrong is the US' f (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't blame the UN, eh? I didn't see Russia, or South Africa, or France, or Belgium, or any other country doing jack fucking shit to help the people of Sudan.
What's your point? Because no one else helps we shouldn't either?
The only "big part" of the UN the United States plays is its seat on the security council and the assload of money we hand over to the useless, corrupt ambassadors of the rest of the world so they can buy their children faster cars.
I'm not real sure what this has to do with your point (if you have one). Anyway, the UN has done some good. Look at the WHO as an earlier poster pointed out. It's not just a big money hole that does nothing, although it has been corrupt in the past. Oh, right, so has the US government. Remember the Nixon administration? Our government is not the saint you think it is.
This is the fucking problem with the rest of the world. You bastards are too fucking lazy/appeasing/pussy to stand up against ANY wrong doing. The second someone does stand up to fix a broken region of the world, you all harp in about how self cenetered and evil they are. You totally fucking ignore whatever evils are being comitted, and turn on whoever is doing something like a pack of wild dogs suddenly turning on its own.
When did America stand up to fix a broken part of the world? No, really? Don't say Iraq. That was for oil and nothing else and you know it. Deep down, you know it. Why aren't we helping the areas that are even MORE broken than Iraq but would cost less to fix? Oh, right, oil.
Yeah, I think what happened in Sudan was terrible. There's not a lot I can do about it, however. But saying America did nothing - what, we're supposed to police the hole fucking world so that everytime some group of backwards, cave dwelling fundamentalists decide to go to war with their neighbour, it's our fucking fault? What the fuck do you think the UN was created for?
Earlier you say we should stand up to evil and fix broken parts of the world, now you basically say "What, we're supposed to police the whole
Now you go into an anti-Islamic rant that I'm not even going to bother pasting. Again, I'm not real sure what your point is.
Don't fucking defend the UN when they fail to do their job by trying to make this the United States or any other countries fault. The people at fault here are those who are comitting the attrocities in the Sudan, and its the responsibility of the UN to keep the peace. (SURPRISE! That's why they call them UN Peacekeepers!)
Why don't you apply this logic to Iraq, and let the UN do its job there? Oh, right, oil. When the UN doesn't do its job in one area (in your opinion) we should invade and "fix" it ourselves, but when it doesn't do its job in another area we should just stick our thumbs up our nether regions and wait for someone else to fix it?
In conclusion:
I know you're smarter than this. Realize your potential by thinking for yourself and not letting the Bush administration form your opinions for you. We may still disagree, but at least you'll be worth arguing with.
Please reply.
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:3, Insightful)
What you Republicans don't seem to understand is that the US is a major element of the UN and the US is as culpable as any other country for its failings. The trouble is, because of the effective propoganda machine in your country you only ever hear about it when France vetoes an action, never when the US does the same.
Re:The ITU != the rest of UN (Score:2, Insightful)
What most people DON'T know is that the crusades were fought to retake constantinople from the Muslims, who invaded it and took it over for no reason.
As for the inquisition, well, anyone worth their salt should know that Catholic != Protestant, and out of the inquisition (Which really wasn't Christian at all - the Church at the time had been taken over by very corrupt leaders).
And what's this about Jews being war mongering? As far as I know, Jews have never started a war, unless you consider obeying their God war mongering (And they have good reason to obery him - I'm not sure you would want to go against the all powerful creator of the universe)
The entire United States isn't Christian - you can't blame the US's faults on us Jesus Freaks.
Now, as for today's USA - what have we done wrong? We took out a dictator who routinely murdered his own people!
Any international organization doesn't have the right to ask the US for something they invented. This is gonna get modded either Troll or Flamebait. Think about what I'm saying before you mod.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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 sick (if in fact he ever existed).
Why people can't simply follow the principles of their religions on their own I can't fathom, but I suspect that most people use religion as a feel-good crutch rather than because they truly researched and believe in the fundamentals that religion espouses.
In this same thread one of the posters suggested that Jews never started any wars "unless obeying your God counts" (or something to that effect - not bothering to quote directly). That's the sheep-like "I can't think for myself so I'll just believe what someone else tells me to" mentality one sees all too often from people who've been blinded by the politics of their particular faith, taking anything their leaders tell them at face value. It's as though they believe that questioning this kind of abuse is blasphemous just because it comes from a religious leader.
One can only hope that these people one day actually sit down and read their particular Bible, Torah or Koran for themselves and decide if (a) it's really what they believe and (b) it's what they've been told it is. As someone who isn't a subscriber to any of them, I still have an interest in reading all three; it's sad a lot of so-called believers don't.