Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 18 guests online.
U.S Gov to Maintain Role as Internet Overseer
Source Title:
BBC: US holds onto key internet role
BBC: US holds onto key internet role
Story Text:
The BBC has a story out on who oversees the root servers that keep our profession going. The current administration has basically said 'screw you' to ICANN:
The US government has in the past indicated it would transfer responsibility for DNS to ICANN [...] but the declaration issued by the US government on Thursday means that Washington intends to retain its key role in supervising how the internet works.
citing security and reliance, pretty much as bywords for terrorists.
Not hugely interesting, truth be told, but sure to stir up some more anti-US feelings.
User login
Follow Threadwatch
Editors
*Active* Threadwatch Editors
Gabriel aka @Gabs
Bill Hartzer
Ann Smarty
Barry Welford
Gail Gardner
Laura Crest
Steve Gerencser
Comments
Important
Or not?
Can't they just look at different root servers and stick two fingers up at US administration?
No
Because the root servers are hardcoded in to all DNS servers. You would need to change the root-server.net's IP's destination, all 13 of which are owned by VeriSign. In fact the routers which control those IPs are probably owned by the US Government. It's something that just can't be taken, it must be given.
remember that the us
Remember that the us government was a key force in the early development of the internet. It pays to get in early.
more internets to follow
I'm sure that within a reasonably short timeframe we will see not one, but numerous "internets".
The research/edu "internet2" is just one, more will follow, and most likely they will not all be interoperable. Not all will be US-controlled either.
Related post
hmmmm
frying pan and fire jump to mind with that particular transfer anyway
No more internets, unless they're from other countries
I don't understand the complaints. The internet was a product of the US gov't, built for its use only. It then shared this with the academic world and eventually the rest of the world -- but it is understandable that they want to maintain control. I pray ICANN never gets full control of the DNS. Those pissed at this obviously understand ICANN very little (possibly the most corrupt, secrative and self-serving organization in the world).
The UN discussing how to give poorer nations a greater say in how the internet is managed is pretty funny, considering the UN has nothing to do with the internet, nor has the US gov't given them any power in determining its future.
Those pissed at this
any resource / reference links on that?
Links
http://www.icannwatch.org/
The UK Register generally has lots on ICANN as well. Over the years, there have been many websites dealing with the troubles surrounding ICANN. The ICANN forums contain a lot of history to be read, along with the real time comments and logs of previous ICANN meetings archived at harvard.edu (Ben's site). There are also some videos of previous conferences if you'd prefer to watch the proceedings (no clue where they'd be archived, but probably not hard to find).
It could've been Minitel
If the French had opened up Minitel to the world in the 70's & 80's we could've all been complaining about why the French weren't giving up control of Minitel DNS. Everyone loves to take shots at the U.S., but where, oh where is the love of the U.S. Gov't since they developed it and made it available in the first place?
hegemony rides again
What?
The UN has everything to do with promoting the place of poorer countries at the global table. Not that they do it particularly well or particularly badly. As the internet, and in particular the WORLD, wide web is a global community/asset, then it should NOT be controlled solely by one country.
The argument that ICANN needs supervision by the US is further evidence that an international body should be the ultimate authority as ICANN is purely a creation of the US government.
Understandable in the same way that it is understandable someone might want to be king of the world. But not justifiable in the broader context.
european countermeasure
Just saw this in the register:
More here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/11/centr_root/