Fredden wrote to mention a BBC piece discussing the U.S.'s poor image when it comes to Internet management. From the article: "It has even lost the support of the European Union. It stands alone as the divisive battle over who runs the internet heads for a showdown at a key UN summit in Tunisia next month. The stakes are high, with the European Commissioner responsible for the net, Viviane Reding, warning of a potential web meltdown. " We've previously covered this story. Internet Power Struggle Reaching Climax Log in/Create an Account | Top | 651 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 651 comments 0: 635 comments 1: 480 comments 2: 352 comments 3: 80 comments 4: 41 comments 5: 31 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. No new solutions, no new news (Score:5, Insightful) by Agelmar (205181) * on Tuesday October 11, @03:53PM (#13767607) This story has been covered on /. at least three times, as noted in the post itself. There are really no new solutions offered here. Comments in the previous post have revolved around setting up alternate root notes for each country which may result in conflicts or fracturing, setting the root nodes to point to some authoritative German node for .de, Japanese node for .jp etc, but this still allows the controller of the root to start 'war'... where are the solutions? I don't see any coming down the pipe - this seems to be the political equivalent of an 'NP-hard' problem, and until someone proves otherwise with a feasible solution, can't we stop re-hashing old news? (Granted, there were a few more ideas offered in the comments to previous posts, but none of them really seem to solve the fundamental issue of decentralized control while maintaining a single Internet that uses DNS.) [ Reply to ThisWho Cares?!! Slashdot need a flamewar! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:01PMRe:Who Cares?!! Slashdot need a flamewar! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:28PMRe:Who Cares?!! Slashdot need a flamewar! by timeOday (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:40PM Stupid American decisions (Score:4, Insightful) by Chmcginn (201645) <agburanar@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 11, @08:33PM (#13770119) Yeah, so I'm replying to the wrong message, I know. Screw it, this is where I started typing it, this is where it's gonna go.There's lots of times that I feel my country makes stupid decisions. Going to war in Iraq (the second time), supporting bannana republics in South & Central America, spending billions on (some) war(s) on abstract noun(s).But telling the UN to go to hell & die rather than letting them take over the internet - that's the best idea they've had in forever.Face it - the problem of the UN General Assembly is like the problem of the US Senate, multipled a few times. Tiny developing world countries, with little population or wealth, have the same say as the US, UK, China, or Russia? Yes, security council, blah blah blah... in the long run, a good portion of the UN is dedicated to whining about how the wealthy of the world have exploited us.Is it true? Well, sometimes, yes.Would it be helpful to direct the further growth of one of the most important 20th century inventions?Pretty much never.And that's about all I have to say about that. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:No new solutions, no new news by Surt (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:04PM Re:No new solutions, no new news (Score:4, Informative) by Shakrai (717556) <tchaika@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 11, @04:25PM (#13767961) (Last Journal: Monday September 19, @10:39AM) de.http://www.ibm.com/ [ibm.com] not being the same as us.http://www.ibm.com/ [ibm.com] That would be a giant PITA and would be like having the entire World use the NANP system of phone numbers yet each nation assigns them locally -- so 212 in the US would be NYC but not in the UK. It would probably also violate a ton of treaties related to trademarks and copyrights if anybody but IBM controlled that domain in Germany (per your example).My suggestion (it will never happen) to solve this "problem" (I don't think there is one but the rest of the World seems to...) would be to get rid of the TLDs like .com, .net, .org, etc. and go back to the country code TLDs. Let every nation set their own policy for how they work. Then you could have .com.us, .com.uk, etc.I've advocated this for years but there is no way in hell it would happen because of the saturation of .com. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:No new solutions, no new news by Surt (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:35PMRe:No new solutions, no new news by Shakrai (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @05:41PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:No new solutions, no new news by jerw134 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:31PMRe:No new solutions, no new news by Surt (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:39PM bassackwards. (Score:5, Insightful) by lheal (86013) <lheal1999 AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday October 11, @04:35PM (#13768069) (http://healconsulting.com/ | Last Journal: Friday June 17, @09:17PM) It would be easier to say:http://www.ibm.com/ [ibm.com]to get to the German ibm.com site if you're in .de land, whereas if a US-dweller wanted to get to a German IBM site, he'd sayhttp://www.ibm.com.de/ [ibm.com.de]You leave off the country identifier to get to sites inside your country, but add it when going international.That could be extended in a natural way by saying anyone inside, e.g., the ibm.com.us domain only need refer to "http://www" to get to http://www.ibm.com.us/ [ibm.com.us]". In other words, the parts of the URL that match your domain need not be supplied. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:bassackwards. by ultranova (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @04:44PMRe:bassackwards. by Agelmar (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @04:48PM uk.co.ackwards.bass (Score:4, Informative) by jhantin (252660) on Tuesday October 11, @05:14PM (#13768471) (http://www.ztradingpost.com/) simply go to http://www.paypal.com./ That trailing dot is significant, and is exactly what is needed to deal with phishy web sites in that context-- it indicates an absolute DNS name, much like a leading / indicates an absolute path name.The DNS mess isn't as bad as it could be though:With all the trouble people have gotten into with it, it's probably a good thing that DNS lacks an equivalent of '..' references.At least the UK gave up their old convention of big-endian [catb.org] domain names. There's no convincing them to drive on the right though. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:uk.co.ackwards.bass by dnoyeb (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:47PMRe:uk.co.ackwards.bass by surprise_audit (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:57PMRe:bassackwards. by Moofie (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @05:15PMUh, it's called a UNIVERSAL Resource... by msauve (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:15PMRe:bassackwards. by csirac (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:44PMRe:bassackwards. by glesga_kiss (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:11PMRe:bassackwards. by Lucractius (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:29AMRe:No new solutions, no new news by pyrrhonist (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @04:43PMRe:No new solutions, no new news by Surt (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:55PMRe:No new solutions, no new news by pyrrhonist (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:30PMRe:No new solutions, no new news by Lucractius (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:34AMRe:No new solutions, no new news by stefanlasiewski (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:03PMRe:No new solutions, no new news by Ford Prefect (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @05:16PMRe:No new solutions, no new news by fsmunoz (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @05:17PMEast Timor by falconwolf (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:57PMRe:No new solutions, no new news by falconwolf (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:No new solutions, no new news by monkeydo (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @05:42PMKids will be kids by Anonymous Coward (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:08PMRe:Kids will be kids by pe1rxq (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:29PMRe:Kids will be kids by aaronl (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:54PMRe:Kids will be kids by Retric (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:00PMRe:Kids will be kids-but we still made the first 1 by oddsends (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:56PMRe:Kids will be kids by HanzoSpam (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:20PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:No new solutions, no new news by Capt James McCarthy (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:17PM Because people don't like the real solution (Score:5, Insightful) by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday October 11, @04:21PM (#13767914) Things stay as they are. There is no legal authority outside of the US to compel ICANN to give up their position, and the US has said they won't. The UN can't pass a resolution to force it, the US will veto it. Basically people can choose to use the DNS system as it is, or they can go make their own.Unless someone can find a good reason to give the US to make ICANN turn things over, there's not anything that can be done. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Because people don't like the real solution by smallpaul (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:46PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Because people don't like the real solution by jmv (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @08:11PMRe:Because people don't like the real solution by elgaard (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @09:25PMRe:Because people don't like the real solution by Miros (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @11:54PMnot really by Trepidity (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @11:53PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Because people don't like the real solution by sjames (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @11:59PMRe:Because people don't like the real solution by slazar (Score:1)Wednesday October 12, @12:00AMRe:No new solutions, no new news by LeonGeeste (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:23PMRe:No new solutions, no new news by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:01PM No new solutions, no problem anyway (Score:5, Insightful) by ErikTheRed (162431) on Tuesday October 11, @04:27PM (#13767979) (http://www.renaughty.com/) I've seen the problem described as "Teh US h4xx0r administration can cut off a country from the rest of the Internet". Pray tell, how? Block a range of IPs from making DNS requests? All it takes is one server in a neutral country to forward / cache those requests. If this did happen, you'd likely have about a million sysadmins jump to the task. Like many political problems, the description is a lie. These countries want to be able to control the Internet (at least within their borders) themselves. They want to engage in suppression of free speech, and create impediments to global commerce. You can love or hate the US and the current administration, but over the last two-plus centuries, pray tell what other major country has done more to promote free speech? If you had to trust one other country or organization in this matter, which one would it be? The UN, where every crackpot dictator and totalitarian asshole is given a voice alongside the democratically elected crackpots and assholes? The EU, which doesn't even have a constitution yet? Russia? China? Iran? Yeah, right! Yes, in theory, no one organization should control DNS and we should all join hands around the campfire and sing 'Kumbaya', but the real world is a rather fucked up place, and the US is probably the least of all evils in this case. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by lgw (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:44PMRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by geminidomino (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:01PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:No new solutions, no problem anyway by Frequanaut (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @05:10PM Re:No new solutions, no problem anyway (Score:4, Insightful) by Monkelectric (546685) <slashdot&monkelectric,com> on Tuesday October 11, @05:25PM (#13768610) (http://www.monkelectric.com/) hese countries want to be able to control the Internet (at least within their borders) themselves.I think they really want to be able to levy taxes. To quote the mayor from deadwood, "Taking peoples money is what makes an organization real, be it temporary, ad hoc, or otherwise."This is a revenue grab pure and simple. Be prepared for domain taxes, ip taxes, email taxes, etc. They will take the money and claim its to help people in developing countries ... however, like the story we've all heard before, somehow, some rich guy will get even richer with the money and the people it was intended for ... nothing.The UN has *NO* credibility. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by harves (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:05PMRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by randyest (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @09:02PMRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by harves (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @09:23PMRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by randyest (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:15PMRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by harves (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @11:03PMRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by HuguesT (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @07:14PMRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by Malc (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @11:30PMRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by pommiekiwifruit (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:27PM US foreign policy made this inevitable (Score:5, Insightful) by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Tuesday October 11, @05:37PM (#13768732) Well, since this whole thread is going to be a trollfest from start to finish, we might as well get this one in early: ...the real world is a rather fucked up place, and the US is probably the least of all evils in this case. The problem with the above is that the rest of the world doesn't believe that any more. The current US administration has quite possibly done more to damage international relations for the US than any other in modern history, and this is probably among the first of many ways it's going to come back to bite them and the citizens they represent.It's not the only one: I watched with great sadness as people whom I know to have given very generously to things like the tsunami appeal openly refused to donate anything in the aftermath of Katrina, such was their loathing for the current state of affairs across the pond. Outside the US, the tragedy that hundreds of people died and countless thousands were displaced isn't what registers with a lot of people any more; they just see the mighty US get what they thought it had coming.I honestly don't think a lot of US citizens realise just how negative their nation's world image is right now. People outside hear claims about protecting human rights, and the first thing they think of is the images from Gitmo. Every time this thread comes up, half a million zealots start claiming the US created the Internet, and the rest of us don't know whether to laugh or cry at the ignorance and naivety. War for oil, the environment, refusing to submit political and military leaders for internationally-recognised war trials while prosecuting leaders of other nations claiming that same authority, using trade power as a way to force other countries to change their legal systems to benefit US corporations at the expense of their own population, supporting dubious regimes in other nations... the list goes on, and none of it's pretty. You have to wonder how any remotely smart US citizen thought their administration could do this and never face any consequences. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by cthulhubob (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:53PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by mjtg (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:26PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by Skye16 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:55PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by geminidomino (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:05PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by HanzoSpam (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @08:05PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by werewolf1031 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:24PMRe: Hello Nationalism / Disease by s388 (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @10:27PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by 1tsm3 (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @10:36PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by ivan256 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:51PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by geminidomino (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:51PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by Mad_Rain (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:57PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by Ex-MislTech (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @11:19PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by geminidomino (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:16AMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by arminw (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:30AM2 replies beneath your current threshold.2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:US foreign policy made this inevitable by john82 (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @06:19PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by Ex-MislTech (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:52PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:US foreign policy made this inevitable by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:21PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by Vicissidude (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:29PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by C0llegeSTUDent (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @11:16PM Re:US foreign policy made this inevitable (Score:5, Insightful) by mickwd (196449) on Tuesday October 11, @06:57PM (#13769466) I often disagree with many of your posts, but on this occasion you are right on the mark.I suspect many Americans are unaware of quite how much damage the current US administration has done to the reputation of their country.For a long time, there's been a bit of a debate about whether the USA should be the "world's policeman", sorting out major world conflicts, because they're the only ones both strong enough and (to Europe's shame) willing enough to do so.Were some countries unhappy about the USA's power and the way they used it ? Of course - often justifiably. The USA certainly got involved in (or started) wars they shouldn't have. But many countries were quite happy, or at least not seriously concerned, with America fulfilling the "world policeman" role. The USA was seen as pushy, occasionally arrogant, putting their own interests first, but on many occasions, in many parts of the world, they were seen as doing things with good intentions. Broadly, they were trusted.No longer.I wish more people in the USA could see just how much damage this administration has done to their country. Damage that will take at least a generation to fix, possibly much longer.Slightly off-topic: Too many Americans seem to take the criticism of their administration too personally. Too easily it descends into a defensive slanging match about the part of the world of the person making the criticism. That said, too many people criticise the USA as a whole, when their criticisms are mainly to do with just the country's (current) administration.Back on-topic: This whole DNS power struggle sounds like a hissy fit by the EU (and maybe others). Of all the things over which the USA has de-facto control, their handling of the internet architecture has been very fair. But like the parent poster pointed out, the USA no longer has the trust of a large part of the rest of the world. Amazing how it has come to this, after the worldwide sympathy felt for it in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by ezeri (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @08:49PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by glesga_kiss (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:21PMGood news, then by Pac (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:43PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:US foreign policy made this inevitable by rtb61 (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:35AMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by Neoprofin (Score:1)Wednesday October 12, @12:49AMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by Kafka_Canada (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @07:00PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by Straker Skunk (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:24PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by Straker Skunk (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:48PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by geminidomino (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:07PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by Ex-MislTech (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @11:37PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.screw the rest of the world by p51d007 (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @08:36PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by adrianmonk (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @08:46PMRe:US foreign policy made this inevitable by ivan256 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:36PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.War for oil by chihowa (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @10:51PMRe:War for oil by adrianmonk (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:28AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Not accepting outsiders either? by phorm (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @11:45PMRe:Why should the US care? by Ex-MislTech (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @11:49PM8 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:No new solutions, no problem anyway by monkeydo (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:50PMChinese Taipei = Taiwan by Isope (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:51PMRe:Chinese Taipei = Taiwan by Simonetta (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:24PMRe:Chinese Taipei = Taiwan by Ex-MislTech (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:06AM Get you own (Score:5, Insightful) by ImaLamer (260199) <john.lamarNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday October 11, @05:53PM (#13768908) (http://mintruth.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 05, @06:40PM) These countries want to be able to control the Internet (at least within their borders) themselves. They want to engage in suppression of free speech, and create impediments to global commerce.Well, then let them build their own network! No, being serious here - there is a way to solve all of this. Someone needs to develop their own DNS-like system and while they are at it develop a alternative to HTTP (because this is what we are really talking about here isn't it folks, "teh web"). When they get this new system up and running they can just go ahead and run it on our TCP/IP networks if they'd like (for a fee). By no means however is this going to take DNS control from us here in the states, ours would just exist along side "theirs".It's possible, so these people should stop bitching.Then again you would need to get American software companies like Microsoft to ship modified software to you specially because everything in it relies on DNS today (Active Directory can't work without it) and you would need to change a lot of other things, but it's possible.You can love or hate the US and the current administration, but over the last two-plus centuries, pray tell what other major country has done more to promote free speech?Well, I don't know about this part of the post. I hate the administration and I don't think they are doing a damn thing for free speech (remember the loyalty oath to see a Bush speech and USAPATRIOT) but I love America and what it stands for and I think only we should be in control for the reason you stated above - some regimes want to censor the Internet.What scares me is that giving the UN control of the DNS servers will allow people from outside of America control an American's inherent right to free speech. If I put up a site that dishes on the Queen of England then she can petition the UN to revoke my domain name. If I wanted to put a site up called BRANDNAME-SUCKS.COM WIPO might close me down.It isn't that I don't trust the UN - I just don't trust anyone I can't "see" in an American court. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Get you own by bentcd (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:31PMRe:Get you own by Lawrence_Bird (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:20AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Get you own by sabernet (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:36PMRe:Get you own by domanova (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @07:36PMRe:Get you own by surprise_audit (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @09:06PMRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by m50d (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:02PMNATO? G8? Something New? by cappadocius (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:25PMRe:No new solutions, no problem anyway by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:11PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:07PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by Pac (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:33PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by jmccay (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:28PMMissed the word, not the point... :) by Pac (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:37PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by randyest (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @09:12PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by randyest (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:13PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by sabernet (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:47PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by EzInKy (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:27PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by randyest (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:28PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by jmccay (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:37PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by geminidomino (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:11PMReading Comprehension 101 by Pac (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @06:49PMTake Reading Comprehension 001 Yourself by randyest (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:21PMRe:Reading Comprehension 101 by kevinwal (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @08:18PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by Qzukk (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:54PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by randyest (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:30PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by Qzukk (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:55PMRe:Free speech, global commerce and the "good" US by randyest (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @09:40PMRe:least of all evils? by geekoid (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:42PM5 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:No new solutions, no new news by malsdavis (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:37PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.And no action! by Rimbo (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:39PMRe:No new solutions, no new news by letxa2000 (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:51PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Chinese script is the thing to learn ... by foobsr (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @03:54PMNo, you're thinking Aqua Net by ChePibe (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:50PMRe:No, you're thinking Aqua Net by foobsr (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:40PMRe:Chinese script is the thing to learn ... by Infernal Device (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:09PMRe:Chinese script is the thing to learn ... by foobsr (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:52PM What meltdown? (Score:4, Interesting) by ploafmaster general (920649) on Tuesday October 11, @03:54PM (#13767615) (http://www.danielcwarshaw.com/) The sheer pomposity that these people have, believing this struggle over a collection of DNS servers is going to cause an internet meltdown, boggles my mind.Stupid politics. [ Reply to ThisRe:What meltdown? by Wesley Felter (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:04PMRe:What meltdown? by Fordiman (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:23PMRe:What meltdown? by raddan (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:40PM Wasn't the point of the Internet....? (Score:5, Insightful) by xiphoris (839465) on Tuesday October 11, @03:54PM (#13767622) (http://www.xiphoris.com/) That no single organization runs it? That destroying pieces of it will not disrupt the rest?The success of the Internet is that its peer-peer nature has allowed it to evolve and struggle past any sort of obstacles, most of them having been technical. Now we have a political obstacle. Why is it necessary that any one organization "control the Internet"? Isn't that exactly not the point of its design? [ Reply to ThisRe:Wasn't the point of the Internet....? by Shnizzzle (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:00PM Re:Wasn't the point of the Internet....? (Score:5, Insightful) by Wesley Felter (138342) <wesley@felter.org> on Tuesday October 11, @04:00PM (#13767684) (http://felter.org/wesley/) That no single organization runs it? That destroying pieces of it will not disrupt the rest?Yes, and then DNS was invented. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Wasn't the point of the Internet....? by logicpaw (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @07:14PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Because that's what politicians DO all day (Score:5, Insightful) by panurge (573432) on Tuesday October 11, @04:06PM (#13767751) Look for power coalescing around a resource, then acquire the resource and control access to it so they get the power. Which, come to think of it, is just what most of the human race does, given the opportunity. Including the recording industry, Rupert Murdoch, and your friendly neighborhood crack dealer.Unfortunately, the function of scientists and engineers is to have good ideas, make them work, and then watch the wealth obsessed and power mad take them over. It's a pity really. If we had the ability to organise, we could collectively hold the politicians to ransom - but it's not in our nature to do it, while it is in their nature to exploit. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Because that's what politicians DO all day by cavemanf16 (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:02PMRe:Because that's what politicians DO all day by cavemanf16 (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @05:05PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Wasn't the point of the Internet....? by Fordiman (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:25PMRe:Wasn't the point of the Internet....? by nixdix (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:34PMRe:Wasn't the point of the Internet....? by aaronl (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:03PM DNS inherently centralized. (Score:5, Insightful) by pavon (30274) on Tuesday October 11, @05:32PM (#13768693) Man I wish I didn't use up all my mod point this morning - this story (like the last one posted) could really use them.This is about ICANN - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. It is in charge of the dissemination of domain names and IP addresses. Things have to have identifiers - you can't get information from another computer, unless you have some way of finding that computer and initiating communication. That is why every computer on the internet must have an address, and they must be unique (even NAT'd computers: IP + Port gives a unique address of how to reach the computer you want). To insure this uniqueness the process of assigning and publishing these addresses is centralized. People have suggested ways to change this but all the suggestions suck. So no, the internet is not this amorphous decentralized thing that people make it out to be. In fact most things about it are more hierarchical than web-like in distribution, but there is just enough redundancy that it is fairly fault proof.On the the real issue. For years, this job has been done by the ICANN, which is an international private non-profit corporation, and save for a few annoyances, it has worked out fine and well. However, ICANN is operating under contract from the US government (I forget the exact department) with the knowledge that if ICANN misbehaves the government will slap them back into line. Thus far, the government has not had to do this, and has wisely been almost entirely hands off. Even when ICANN refused to give the IQ domain name to the provisional government in Iraq, the government did not use it's position over ICANN put any particular pressure on them.The looming question though is what the US government considers misbehaving. This isn't spelled out anywhere for the most part. So far the government has played nice - but who's to say what they will do in the future. Many people therefore want a more international body to be the final say over ICANN (or its equivalent), but their proposals are all as equally vague as the US's policy.So the world politicians are untrusting of the US, for fear that they may change their hands-off policy, especially with our increasingly unilateral behavior. Therefore, they want ultimate say over the internet, whatever that means. Likewise the US and a large portion of the technical community are untrusting of the UN, because some of them see the UN as incompentant or corrupt, and because European technical regulators are far more politicized on heavy-handed than their US counterparts, and also because more totalitarian governments are on the front line of the push. So we don't want to hand over control to a new party, when the current arrangement is working just fine.In short, since neither side has managed to spell out what it actually wants, it has just turned into a big ideological mess. What they need to do is table the discussion on who will run the internet and start talking about how the internet should be run. Each side should think of all the things that they are worried about if the other has control, and then sit down and write policy that alleviates these concerns. But until it is determined what power the "Head of the Internet" has, and more importantly what powers it does not have, then nothing productive can happen. It will continue to generate a bunch of "we created it - we run it" and "you guys think you rule the world but you don't" gargbage - just like on slashdot. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:DNS inherently centralized. (Score:5, Interesting) by sane? (179855) on Tuesday October 11, @06:03PM (#13769015) A good, reasoned, and informed comment - in marked contrast to most of pointless diatribes here. A few points though, following on from my comment to the last dupe posted.ICANN isn't viewed particularly fondly by those outside the US, most because it takes almost no notice of the view of the various gTLDs; and because it looks like it wants to tax those gTLD to pay for its existance. You won't have heard this in the US media of course, but are you surprised? You may have heard of the phrase "no taxation without representation" before?The US had agreed to get the US governments hands off the decision making process, then back tracked and said that no, on balance they would like to go back on that and ignore agreements, keeping the 'authorisation' role. This pissed off lots of people who were waiting for Sept 2006 with gritted teeth. The US misjudged their position.The US government, and its religious nuts, have already interfered (with .XXX). Most consider this a taste of what it might do in future (eg axis of evil = delete the gTLD from the root so they 'disappear'). In short, nobody trusts them.A proportion of the root servers are already outside the geographic US. Its not difficult to setup a forum to discuss policy, give an automated mechanism to allow gTLD and other non-gTLD controllers the ability to update the root servers, and cut the US gov out of the process.The root DNS maybe at the root of everything, but a change of who says what is served and how is not going to bring the walls crumbling down. Nobody is likely to say that .COM DNS is now provided by someone else; unless someone does something stupid. However the ability to opt out of that stupidity is what is being taken and there isn't really much that the US can do to stop it, short of threatening force.Oh yes, and the reporting on this is really, really bad. [ Reply to This | ParentWhiners and liars both. by ScrewMaster (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:46AMRe:Wasn't the point of the Internet....? by Big_Al_B (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:34PMSo what? by RWerp (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @03:56PMWhat's wrong now people? by imboboage0 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:02PMRe:What's wrong now people? by ccp (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:38PMRe:What's wrong now people? by Mad Marlin (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:42PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful) by hunterx11 (778171) <hunterx11NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday October 11, @04:03PM (#13767728) (http://lavincolindo.net/ | Last Journal: Friday October 07, @03:21PM) I think ICANN has done wonderfully on keeping out politics, as it should, with one exception: revoking domain names. But this is actually an argument against UN control, as ICANN has only started doing this at the behest of WIPO. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:So what? by trygstad (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:16PMRe:So what? by crotherm (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @04:07PMRe:So what? by RWerp (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @04:12PMRe:So what? by FurryFeet (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:21PMRe:So what? by RWerp (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:41AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:So what? by GaepysPike (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:01PMRe:So what? by ThaFooz (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:15PMRe:So what? by NotoriousQ (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:59PMRe:So what? by ThaFooz (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @10:17PMRe:So what? by NotoriousQ (Score:2)Wednesday October 12, @12:28AMRe:So what? by crotherm (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:20PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:So what? by Bobzibub (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:14PMRe:So what? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:26PMRe:So what? by hackstraw (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @04:30PMRe:So what? by mcc (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @04:36PMRe:So what? by smashin234 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:43PMRe:So what? by MoogMan (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:43PMYou say we're hostile. by Holi (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @04:52PMRe:So what? by RWerp (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:58PMRe:So what? by LWATCDR (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:02PMRe:So what? by JohnnyNoSPAM (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:50PMRe:So what? by bentcd (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:39PMRe:So what? by JohnnyNoSPAM (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:55PMOops... by JohnnyNoSPAM (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:58PMRe:So what? by bentcd (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:17PMRe:So what? by daniel-sasona (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:33PMRe:So what? by m50d (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @07:04PMRe:So what? by dcam (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @08:11PMRe:So what? by syousef (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @09:24PMRe:So what? by Fishstick (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:10PMRe:So what? by jerw134 (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @04:15PMRe:So what? by Dot.Com.CEO (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @04:23PMRe:So what? by HexRei (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @04:29PMRe:So what? by Dot.Com.CEO (Score:3)Tuesday October 11, @04:33PMRe:So what? by Vicissidude (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @05:45PMThe word you are looking for is by geekoid (Score:2)Tuesday October 11, @06:31PMRe:So what? by TooMuchEspressoGuy (Score:1)Tuesday October 11, @06:25PM