Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Politics

Senator Wants to Keep U.N. Away From the Internet 1149

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the keep-your-peanut-butter-out-of-my-chocolate dept.
Martin Boleman writes "ZDNet reports that Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, said his nonbinding resolution would protect the Internet from a takeover by the United Nations that's scheduled to be discussed at a summit in Tunisia next month. "The Internet is likely to face a grave threat, If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on." he said in a statement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senator Wants to Keep U.N. Away From the Internet

Comments Filter:
  • by dada21 (163177) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:54AM (#13827130) Homepage Journal
    Norm Coleman ranked very pro-freedom by the RLC. While he's still a Statist, he seems to have a lightly more freedom oriented strategy for the Senate.

    The provisions for the Internet being taken over by the UN or any political body will likely bifurcate the Net into multiple separate networks still interconnected but ready to dissolve from those that censor or regulate the information more than the billions of users want.

    Seriously, is DNS control even necessary? My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.

    My Internet doesn't need DNS as it is set up today. E-mail is dependent on DNS for now, but a combination of BitTorrent and LDAP will shut that need off if DNS gets ripped apart.

    There are three reasons for government control of DNS:
    1. Censorship
    2. Regulation/licensing of certain speech (campaign, medical, educational?)
    3. Profit!!! (for the cronies who sell domain names)

    There is zero need for any regulation. The Internet could be usurped by any big business but isn't. The ultimate proof of anarchy in action. Companies that try to control the users are beaten by those that provide open access. Companies that want to break free from the global structure will anger their users who want access to anyone else. Verizon could separate their phone network completely but its in their best interest to communicate with their competition.

    The UN just wants monopoly power through force and coercion. The private corporations want to be #1 but have to constantly compete with others.

    • by duerra (684053) *
      Norm Coleman is my Senator, and I must say that I have been pleased with his approach to consumer rights and technology in general. He's also a supporter of HR 1201, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005 [loc.gov]. While people may disagree with him, I definitely think that he's making an attempt to look out for the best interests of technological advancement with his constituents in mind, and not a corporate pocketbook.
    • by HunterZ (20035) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:03PM (#13827222) Journal
      Seriously, is DNS control even necessary? My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.

      Are you kidding?
      - Most BT torrents reference trackers by domain name. Of course this could change, but existing torrents would break instantly if DNS went down.
      - Google links pages by domain names when they have them. They might be able to reindex everything by IP address, but it would certianly be nontrivial. Also, I'll bet you load Google via its google.com domain name and not by its IP address.
      - I'd also wager that over 95% of your bookmarks link domain names instead of IP addresses. Expect every one of them to break if DNS were to suddenly disappear.

      DNS will never go away simply because business don't want to put raw, hard to remember IP addresses on advertisements when they can put www.mcdonalds.com instead.
      • by SteveAyre (209812) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:12PM (#13827316)
        Plus every website using NameVirtualHost or equivalent to share the same IP with other websites would become inaccessible, whether you know the IP or not.
      • by dada21 (163177) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:22PM (#13827437) Homepage Journal
        You're mostly correct. Today, right now, DNS is needed. So are fax machines and Liquid Paper.

        Yet the future of the Internet will only seek out more competition, fewer regulations and restrictions, and less dependence on older standards. I do believe the Internet could operate just fine without a central DNS authority. Yes, it would be an enormous problem if DNS broke today or even attempted separation, but it won't happen. Those who depend on the voluntary choice of their customers would immediately find a fix in the event of an outage or separation.

        The US is wrong in wants to continue to control DNS root services. The UN is even more wrong in thinking taking control would make things better.

        In the long run, newer protocols and information sharing services will give people the information they want without the need for DNS. Most people communicating over IM don't even see domain names. Most people communicating over BT don't either. As bandwidth goes up and newer forms of hive-communications are created, we'll see less and less central control.

        I remember running my first BBS. 1 node. Local users only. No sharing of data with other BBSes and only 1 user at a time. Then multinode, then FidoNet, then UseNet, then Gopher, then E-mail, then WWW, then ICQ, then Napster, then BT, then ???

        Information is getting less centralized or tied to a location in ever faste steps. DNS is ready for replacement.
    • by KingSkippus (799657) * on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:05PM (#13827244) Homepage Journal
      Bit-torrent doesn't need [DNS], Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.

      Bittorrent is an itty-bitty part of the services available on the Internet. And if you let search engines serve as your source for finding the location of resources you need, how is that better than DNS? It seems to me that you're just swapping one directory service for another, the second being corporately owned and changeable at their whim. Besides, without DNS, how are you going to even get to Google? http://64.233.161.99 [64.233.161.99]? Or maybe you prefer http://64.233.161.104/ [64.233.161.104] or http://64.233.161.147 [64.233.161.147]?

      Maybe you don't use DNS a lot, but the rest of the world sure as heck does. It's a basic network service that the Internet is almost useless without. Personally, I think it's pretty scary that one country that, frankly, the world doesn't find very trustworthy right now, controls it.

      But I guess that's just me. Oh, and the rest of the world. (And for what it's worth I am American...)

      • Not to mention that DNS provides a nice layer of indirection. Change ISPs and you don't have to update everybody's bookmarks. And a bit of clever DNS management allows things like coral and akamai to do distributed web content delivery.

        DNS isn't just an option; it's a necessity.
      • I certainly can't dispute your assertion that the US government is untrustworthy. The problem is, so is every other government on earth, and the UN is worse by at least an order of magnitude.

        The current, largely unregulated structure isn't perfect, but it's vastly better than anything we're likely to see coming out of governmental control, EU control or, heaven forbid, UN control.

      • by JasonKChapman (842766) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:50PM (#13827791) Homepage
        And if you let search engines serve as your source for finding the location of resources you need, how is that better than DNS? It seems to me that you're just swapping one directory service for another, the second being corporately owned and changeable at their whim.

        They're open to competition and they're a matter of individual choice. Don't like Google's results? Use Yahoo!'s or Teoma's or any of the hundreds that would spring up in response. Of course, you're swapping one directory service for another. That was the GP's point. DNS, while useful, is not the sine qua non of the Internet. DNS relates human concepts (domain names) to IP addresses. Search engines relate human concepts (text content) to IP addresses. My Bookmarks relate human concepts (whatever mnemonic I choose) to IP addresses. It's all the same function. If DNS got borked, the 'Net would recover with surprising speed. That's why any threat regarding "control" of the Internet is empty. Any problems would be temporary--a hassle, yes, but a short-term hassle.

        Personally, I think it's pretty scary that one country that, frankly, the world doesn't find very trustworthy right now, controls it.

        s/country/organization/ and the statement works equally well for the UN. As a regulatory body, the UN is a proven failure. It works as a venue for mediation and it works as a coordinator for disaster relief. That's about it.

      • by cygnusx (193092) * on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:02PM (#13827925) Homepage
        I'm *not* American, but my bullshit detectors go off hard when I see China and Saudi Arabia slavering for control of the free-est communication network known to man. And it's sad to see elements in the EU joining with these countries to promote their own bureaucratic agenda (and many Europeans have noticed [blogspot.com]).

        And the ironic bit is that Tunisia, where this free-the-DNS-from-US-shackles gabfest was held, has an extremely lousy record [nettime.org] on Net freedom.
    • by DrYak (748999) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:15PM (#13827357) Homepage
      Beside for finding a server IP dns names can be usefull for a lot of stuffs :

      - providing load balancing.
      By the fact they can point to different IP each time.
      You can have a single domain name like "wikipedia.org" or "google.*" or "pool.ntp.org" pointing to numerous servers accross the globe and thus distibute the load.
      Old way (providing a list of mirrors) requires the server the contains the mirror list to be able to sustain connextion from ALL users. And adds a cumbersome step to the process.

      - server co-sharing.
      A server is usually referred by a single IP addresse.
      Assigning multiple name to the same server enables you to have different websites depending on used servername.
      Most of the cheap server solution uses this. ...of course if one day the IPv6 rolls in, it'll be easier to have multiple IPs assigned to a single server (one for each website).

      - dynamic IP
      dynip.org and such. (see problems with load-balancing vs. on-line lists above) ..of course with IPv6 this may become less a problem.

      - DNS used for everything else, including kitchen sink.
      DNS are also used for listing Spammers,
      listing botnets and other black-lists,
      listing E164 number to VoIP maps,
      what ever else.
      DNS are often used as convenient lists, with standart interface.
    • Reason 4 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ironsides (739422) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:20PM (#13827415) Homepage Journal
      the power to levy taxes on domain names to pay for "universal access,"

      As taken straight from the article.
    • by stefanlasiewski (63134) * <slashdot@@@stefanco...com> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:30PM (#13827533) Homepage Journal
      My 'utopian' internet future doesn't see much need for DNS. Bit-torrent doesn't need it, Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.

      DNS makes the Internet easy to use. How many external IP addresses can you recite from memory? When we moveto IPV6 addresses, will you remember an address like "2001:0db8:85a3:08d3:1319:8a2e:0370:7334/64"?

      Google DOES make use of DNS names-- it's in the search result. If you rely too much on Google to browse the web, you are giving up some control to rely on a centralized power. I'd be willing to bet that all of your bookmarks use DNS names as well.

      In the time before DNS, people STILL didn't want to remember all those long IP addresses, and usually stored a name/IP map as a host file on the local machine. And there was much confusion when the host files fell out of sync, and thus a centralized name service was created to deal with this confusion.
  • Pot, Kettle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eln (21727) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:55AM (#13827140) Homepage
    we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on.

    So his plan is to abolish the RIAA?

    Seriously, the US government has been trying to erode protections for online privacy and information access for years, why does he think the UN would be any more dangerous?
    • Re:Pot, Kettle (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ikeya (7401) <daveNO@SPAMkuck.net> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:07PM (#13827269) Homepage
      Remember that Norm Coleman also was trying to STOP the RIAA from filing all of the John Doe-style lawsuits and whatnot. He's one of the good guys.
  • by Surt (22457) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:55AM (#13827145) Homepage Journal
    We can't stop other countries from setting up their own root servers if they want to, except militarily. Are we really going to go to war to stop them (sadly, in this administration, this is not quite a rhetorical question)?

  • Norm Coleman? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Robber Baron (112304) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:56AM (#13827151) Homepage
    Norm Coleman? Is that the same Norm Coleman that got bitch-slapped by George Galloway? [onlinejournal.com]
  • by farrellj (563) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:04PM (#13827237) Homepage Journal
    Time for the internet to declare it's independance!

    Let's have a Boston DNS party!

    Tell the US & UN to get stuffed!

    ttyl
              Farrell ...with tongue lightly planted in cheek...
  • Americans (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:07PM (#13827266)
    It is so nice to see so many Americans voice their opinion here and really show how little they know about the UN.
  • Reasons? (Score:3, Funny)

    by E-Rock-23 (470500) <lostprophytNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:07PM (#13827272) Homepage Journal
    A few thoughts:

    The US wants to keep control for purely financial reasons. They want to gouge other countries for access, and allow the big telecoms to maintain their control on the flow of information at asinine prices.

    Or, they want to keep control for moral reasons. Remember, Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzales has started his Porn Squad (not to attack only kiddie porn sites, but consenting adult sites as well) in some sort of twisted moral crusade. Well, there is a buttload of porn on the net, isn't there. If we keep control, he can stamp it out...

    Another reason could be "National Security," though I'm pretty sure they already spend an asinine amount of money to keep sensitive stuff off of the 'Net to begin with. The Internet is no longer a super-secret Pentagon project, and has been publicly available for over a decade. I remember reading somewhere that works of the Government are in the Public Domain. Dunno if that applys to just images and text, or to secret, non-military projects like the Internet (again, now that it's been made public, not prior).

    I say we share control with the world at large. Except with the French. The French are too weird. And most certainly not with the UN, corrupt an organisation as that is. It should be a seperate, international consortium with equal power for all countries involved. There shouldn't be one "regulator," and especially not the United States.

    But that's just me, and I don't count...
  • by smithmc (451373) * on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:11PM (#13827310) Journal
    How exactly is a non-binding resolution supposed to protect anything from anyone?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:12PM (#13827320)
    That's fud and simply untrue, no matter how many times people repeat it.

    What is happening is that several countries (not the UN) don't want to live with a situation anymore in which only one nation, the US, controls critical parts of their infrastructure. I don't know why such a sentiment should come as a surprise to anybody, I think it's pretty normal and inevitable.

    And in case this comes up again:
    It's not the EU pushing this, as /. falsely reported, but on the contrary the EU is right now trying to find a solution that both sides, the US, that doesn't want to give up control and other nations, the don't want the control in the hands of the US, could live with.

    Finally, I'm sure we will be treated to about 100 posts whining about how the US invented the internet and the world was so unfair. This is of course utterly laughable, as it simply does not matter who invented what, or how would you react to the Chinese demanding you stop using paper, or, omg, firearms, because they invented the stuff?
    But if you want to play this little game anyway, please keep in mind that the world wide web, or rather the technologies necessary for it, were invented in Europe.
    • by RexRhino (769423) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:22PM (#13828167)
      Actually, countries like China and Syria have mad it quite clear that their goals are to restructure the internet such that it is easier to track users, servers can be licenced and tracked, internet services can be taxed, it is easier to block sites, etc.

      The whole "They just want to control a critical part of their infrastructure" arguement doesn't come from China, Syria, North Korea, or Cuba, it comes from apologists in the West in order to justify what is clearly an attemt to destroy the free internet as it operates now.

      It would be extremly easy to implement a system where no one entity controls the internet (have each country be responsible for there own .uk .us. country extension, and with IP6 to give each country a huge block of IPs it controls). It would solve the problem of the U.S. "control" of the internet, and wouldn't require giving massive power to the U.N., and technologically wouldn't be that different than what exists now.

      This has nothing to do with countries worried about U.S. control of critical parts of their infrastructure (because all those countries have 100% control of their own infrastructure right now!), this is about wanting to end the era of the free, wild, and completly unregulated internet. It is about making the internet an easily controlable medium, like television, radio, and telephone. It is embarrasing for Western politicians to admit that their views on censorship, taxation, and internal survalence of their population is virtually identical to that of China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. So you spread some FUD about the U.S. being in control of their critical infrastructure (which it isn't, and even if it was the problem could be solved without the U.N.), and hope that knee jerk anti-Americanism will blind people to the real authoritarian goal.
  • .us domain? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Janek Kozicki (722688) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:17PM (#13827391) Journal
    explain me just one thing: why http://www.whitehouse.gov/ [whitehouse.gov] points to something that should be http://www.whitehouse.gov.us/ [whitehouse.gov.us] ? If aliens would like to see webpage of WHOLE earth's goverment, where would they go?
    • explain me just one thing: why http://www.whitehouse.gov/ [whitehouse.gov] points to something that should be http://www.whitehouse.gov.us/ [whitehouse.gov.us] ? If aliens would like to see webpage of WHOLE earth's goverment, where would they go?

      In fairness (to the US) the whole thing's a mess: the EU uses eu.int, the UN uses un.org, the UK uses .gov.uk. Outside politics, it's much the same: the US and Australia, say, use "edu" for schools and universities; the UK and New Zealand use "ac".

      I'm happy to let the US keep using the ".gov" and

  • by xeeazgk (850506) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:20PM (#13827426)
    the dmca also PROTECTS consumers... by limiting our access to our data and our devices. the clear skies initiative PROTECTS the environment... by making government inspections into private self-inspections. the no child left behind PROTECTS our children... by creating a hole in the education budget with an unfunded mandate. the patriot act PROTECTS our precious freedom... by ripping holes in the constitution. operation iraqi freedom PROTECTS iraqis... by bombing them. Why is it that whenever I hear the 'pubs talk about PROTECTING something, I start to worry about whatever it is they want to PROTECT? Perhaps PROTECT is actually some kind of acronym equivalent to "Drop your pants and grab your ankles." The Orwellian-ness of it all is excitingly terrifying. But, yes, by all means, let's PROTECT the internet. Is anyone thinking that maybe the gov't will start PROTECTING us from the terrorist content on the internet, the same way China does for their citizens?
  • by Xarius (691264) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:22PM (#13827436) Homepage
    Disclaimer: This is not a flame or troll, it's simply what I think

    The USA seems to be becoming more and more totalitarian in the way it handles things in general. I realise this is less evident for those actually in the USA (the same way most Chinese are oblivious to the same type of government) but for all of us outsiders, your government is increasingly hostile and arrogant, even towards those it deems friends.

    What we don't need is the DNS root servers being almost all controlled by this one country. Things could go seriously bad in a shockingly small space of time, and before you know it a key part of the Internet we all rely on is subject to the every whim of a crazy man (not necessarily G W Bush). And considering the Internet is now critical to many industries and governments, any kind of manipulation will be a very bad thing.

    Now I'm not saying the UN should take control of this, but why can't we have a collection of countries known for their relatively free nature be in charge of this? USA could take a few servers (with it being so big), Canada could have one, UK have a few (because I'm British and biased), scatter some around France, Germany, maybe even Russia (*gasp*).

    Why does this need to be a UN issue? Surely these countries could have come to an agreement with the US.

    Although the best course of action would be for the major world players to set up their own root servers, provide incentives for ISPs to use those primarily. I don't know if the root servers have the main configuration files available publicly, but surely there wouldn't be an issue of syncing them to non-US root servers? After all it only benefits everyone, and if the US does turn into a total bastard (pardon my French) at least everything won't crumble and we'd still have unbiased root servers scattered about.
    • by NotoriousQ (457789) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:44PM (#13828423) Homepage
      What we don't need is the DNS root servers being almost all controlled by this one country. Things could go seriously bad in a shockingly small space of time, and before you know it a key part of the Internet we all rely on is subject to the every whim of a crazy man (not necessarily G W Bush). And considering the Internet is now critical to many industries and governments, any kind of manipulation will be a very bad thing.

      Now I'm not saying the UN should take control of this, but why can't we have a collection of countries known for their relatively free nature be in charge of this? USA could take a few servers (with it being so big), Canada could have one, UK have a few (because I'm British and biased), scatter some around France, Germany, maybe even Russia (*gasp*).

      Not all the root servers are in US. And while a US agency is "determining" which ones are official, they do not even own them, private businesses do.

      The funny part about this is the worst things that can happen if US manages to shut off DNS, is a DNS root split, which is exactly what all the countries are threatening to do if US does not cooperate.

      So the worst thing US can do is exactly what they are about to do to themselves.

      As that does not make sense, I am going to make a comment that this has nothing to do with infrastructure or security of the net. All that this issue is about is either input into decisions....aka some countries may not appreciate having a .xxx domain, etc. Or money, aka some countries want to use DNS servers to make people make payments to them.

      There is no technical merit to any of these bickerings.

  • In other words (Score:4, Insightful)

    by elgatozorbas (783538) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:24PM (#13827463)
    "...we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on." he said in a statement."

    He wants the US to be 'the boss' of the internet, just like, for some reason, the US needs to be the boss of everything in order for it to be 'free', 'democratic', 'safe' etc.

  • Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nnnneedles (216864) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:31PM (#13827552)
    By reading these comments it seems that an international body controlling the internet would consist of China, Iran, Cuba, the United States and noone else!

    I find this very interesting.

  • by bewert (197853) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:52PM (#13827805) Homepage
    The Project For A New American Century is an organization dedicated "...to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." Among the members are VP Dick Cheney and his currently embattled Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, SecDef Don Rumsfled, Jeb Bush (brother of President Bush), etc. See their Statement of Principals and a list of the signers of this founding document. [newamericancentury.org] If you don't recognize some of the names, Google them and see where they have worked in the last five years. Paul Wolfowits, Dov Zakheim and Zalmay Khalilzad are good ones to start with. Here's a nice place to start with Zakheim. [google.com] And it only gets more interesting from there ;)

    In September, 2000 PNAC released a controversial document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses, [newamericancentury.org] in which they argued that a "catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to speed up their planned re-militarization of America (see pg. 68). Earlier in this document they itemized their core principals, including 'CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.'(see pg. 11) On page 57 they go into more detail about how and why America must retain control of cyberspace. Controlling ICAAN is critical to this goal.

    Scared yet? Remember, these are the folks that brought us the Patriot Act, forcing a vote on it after 9/11 without allowing anyone to read it, and enabling such great things as holding potential "terrorists" indefinitely without access to family or legal representation, sneak-and-peek searches, warrantless monitoring of e-mail, monitoring dissent groups without any suspicion of criminal activity by them, etc., etc.

    As for Iraq, PNAC has been calling for the overthrow of Saddam since 1997 [newamericancentury.org] as a way to retain control of world energy supplies, critical to ensuring America's control over the world. But I think they bit off more than they could chew over there.

    This group is truly scary, and they have been running our government for five years now.

  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @12:53PM (#13827821)

    Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, said his nonbinding resolution would protect the Internet from a takeover by the United Nations that's scheduled to be discussed at a summit in Tunisia next month.

    Yeah, because passing laws in the U.S. is a great way to control what other countries do, in their own countries, with their own hardware and networks that they built and paid for. Brilliant! This is just another politician trying to capitalize on the "us versus them" sentiments trying to be pushed by a number of factions in the U.S.

    There is no reason why any one country should run a single point of failure for a resource vital to communications and commerce throughout the world, especially when most of the gear it is running on, paid for by, and resides in those other countries. The world has spoken, they want a democratic solution with representation for everyone. They don't want to keep paying large fees to U.S. corporations for a naming service that was free before the big corporations got involved and can be free, or nearly free again. Most of all, they don't like an increasingly aggressive and deceptive country to be able to severely damage the economy of another country at their whim. No one trusts the U.S. to be a benevolent dictator and they would be foolish if they did. It is time to remember some of those American ideals, like democracy and representation for all are far more important than the new American ideals of making money and bullying the rest of the world.

    To put it simply, the internet is a global enterprise made up of hardware and software running in and paid for countries all around the world. Those countries deserve a say in how the naming scheme works and this sort of "America is superior to the rest of the world" nationalist bullshit is not only useless chest thumping, but it makes the U.S. look like even more of a vicious bully in the eyes of the world. You should be ashamed of yourself Mr. Coleman.

  • Clone it fool! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by m1a1 (622864) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:01PM (#13827907)
    So, I'm probably too late for anyone to notice, but I'll post anyways.

    It is completely unnecessary for a change of hands or the root servers to take place. The mechanisms are already there for any country to effectively free itself from the evil grasp of the U.S. At least this is true if the motivating factor truly is a fear of the U.S. crippling other economies by use of it's control of DNS servers.

    Any country could simply keep up daily clones of the root servers. They could then legislate that ISPs and Universities use these clones exclusively. The clones could even directly reference the actual rootservers until such a time as access to those root servers is denied, at which point it could failover to it's own database.

    This prevents the scenario where the U.S. messes with your country by breaking the rootservers. If we decided to split you at least have a relatively up to date domain name service structure and you go from there.
  • Pathetic threads (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thunderbee (92099) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @01:07PM (#13827976) Homepage
    Every time the subject comes to the front-page, the thread is aflame with uninformed, knee-jerk, and often plain stupid posts.

    Half of the people posting here don't even have a basic grasp of how the internet works.
    And, no, the internet is not the US. Sever the international links, and then you'll have a US-owned internet. Oh boy, you've lost access to the pirate bay. Hey, you can't get some crypto packages anymore! Please. That's the whole point of the internet.

    If the world starts using different root-servers, that's it. They'll talk to the US-only roots to maintain connectivity, and the Us-only roots will talk to the new roots for the very same reason. And if they don't, why, just add them to your own setup.
    There. No one was harmed.
    Sharing the IP-space will be a bit harder; but that would be a good excuse to move to ipv6 faster.

    But short of invading the world, there's little the US can do about it.

    I can't see what the fuss is about. Really. Get on with your lack of life.

    Burning karma like ther's no tomorrow

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...