NationStates Jolt Archive

Is this really that big of deal to everyone? I dont see a problem with this. I think that turning it over to a world body could lead to trouble in my opinion. I could make a case for national security that the root servers are maintained under US oversight. What do you all think. BTW I think its funny how Aljezeera labled the headline.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F74386DB-3B23-49E4-B70A-04A02D513538.htm

Frankly, I'd rather see the internet in the hands of China before an 'international body'. However, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the nation with the most users, most resources, and most money put into the internet keeps the things they built.

And if there were any censorship going on, would we be seeing a single post by CanuckHeaven?

Dear world, if you don't like it, make your own damn internet. Seriously, it would probably be better. As it stands today, the internet is about as anarchistic as it can be. I don't think it would remain that way with the UN or some international body having any say. At least in the US, "hate speech" isn't yet a crime.

Since ICANN and the W3C are already international bodies, why not the root server management?


Excerpt from ICANN's website:

"ICANN's Board has included citizens of Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ghana, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States."

The ICANN is responsible for the management of DNS servers and IP address mapping, for a critical concept called "universal resolvability".

:rolleyes:

Do you not check your sources? The US doesn't own any of the root servers, and only plays a role in controlling half of them. Sorry, nothing else to report here.

--dunerat, Dominar of Evamade

*bump*

Is this really that big of deal to everyone? I dont see a problem with this. I think that turning it over to a world body could lead to trouble in my opinion. I could make a case for national security that the root servers are maintained under US oversight. What do you all think. BTW I think its funny how Aljezeera labled the headline.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F74386DB-3B23-49E4-B70A-04A02D513538.htm

I don't have a problem with this either Marrackech II.

The problem in this is that US is going thru some kind of a "I'm not playing with you doodoohead" routine. You can, of course, set up private address spaces, and USA can't do anything. But, if USA decides to not connect that address space to the main space, it's unreachable elsewhere. Of course, you can route around this nuisance pretty easily, so no censorship is really possible. USA doesn't want to play along for the sake of not playing along for the benefit of the Internet users. It's just a pointless show of arrogance, stemming from the current administration's inability to co-operate with anyone.

The problem in this is that US is going thru some kind of a "I'm not playing with you doodoohead" routine. You can, of course, set up private address spaces, and USA can't do anything. But, if USA decides to not connect that address space to the main space, it's unreachable elsewhere. Of course, you can route around this nuisance pretty easily, so no censorship is really possible. USA doesn't want to play along for the sake of not playing along for the benefit of the Internet users. It's just a pointless show of arrogance, stemming from the current administration's inability to co-operate with anyone.


So your blaming this on Bush arrogance and nothing else? I know you can look passed your anti-Bush rhetoric and really think about this.

What does "retaining oversight" mean exactly?

What does "retaining oversight" mean exactly?

I could go into explanation. But read the article attached to my main post. That should clear things up for you.

So your blaming this on Bush arrogance and nothing else? I know you can look passed your anti-Bush rhetoric and really think about this.
The current administration is the only one who CAN be the cause of this, because they have the executive power. And, they are unable to co-operate in other issues, too.

They actually removed one international telecommunications committee member from the committee for giving a $250 campaign donation to Kerry.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1053595,00.html

They actually removed one international telecommunications committee member from the committee for giving a $250 campaign donation to Kerry.

Depending on the rules of the committee, he could've violated those terms and thus he was released from the position. Ever thought of that?

Got no problem as long as they dont do anything with it. Lets put the internet under the control of the Swiss - If anything is certain its that the Swiss wont do anything...ever...except make cheese and knives.

Depending on the rules of the committee, he could've violated those terms and thus he was released from the position. Ever thought of that?
No. The administration was selecting the committee members, and screened them for Kerry donations. Two were rejected, given the explicit reason that the were Kerry supporters, and so couldn't represent USA. It was not even hidden, or with stupid excuses. It was solely because they gave donations to the Kerry campaign.

No. The administration was selecting the committee members, and screened them for Kerry donations. Two were rejected, given the explicit reason that the were Kerry supporters, and so couldn't represent USA. It was not even hidden, or with stupid excuses. It was solely because they gave donations to the Kerry campaign.

You have no proof of this and from my perspective, your only proof is this guy that was dismissed so what he says can be construed as suspect.

You have no proof of this and from my perspective, your only proof is this guy that was dismissed so what he says can be construed as suspect.
No. There were two industry representatives, which were rejected, given the OFFICIAL, EXPLICIT reason that they gave the donations and are thus unable to represent USA.

What you're saying is basically like "You have no proof that Bush claimed that Saddam had WMDs".

Not a big deal. The root servers don't even handle traffic or domain names. Just the .com, .uk, etc. suffixes.

You have no proof of this and from my perspective, your only proof is this guy that was dismissed so what he says can be construed as suspect.

Or, if you prefer,

I Can't Hear You! La, la la la laaa!

Not a big deal. The root servers don't even handle traffic or domain names. Just the .com, .uk, etc. suffixes.
Even as such the root level is not all that important all it does is keep track of the 2nd lvl domain servers

So .com .edu .org … so on so forth are all second lvl domains not much they can do with that
I am not even sure why they are bothering … with control over 2nd lvl they could theoretically filter out who got a name and therefore do content filtering but at the root lvl not so much