Bush administration annexes control of the Internet

feakbeak

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 16, 2003
925
1
Michigan
Link to article

As an American, all I can say is "Damn, we're arrogant."

Here's an interesting section of the article:

But what is most disturbing about Gallagher's presentation, is how it endlessly refers to the president. The first slide has a picture of George Bush. The second begins "Thanks to the president's policies, America's economy is strong". The next slide is "The president's broadband vision". The next slide leads with a quote from Bush and two pictures of him. And on and on it goes. There is barely a single slide that doesn't quote from the president.
WTF? I doubt Bush can even spell the word Internet and I'm certain that he has no clue what domain name resolution is about.

Edit: At some point if the rest of the world rises up to slay us after we continue to pull more of these arrogant and selfish maneuvers please keep in mind that of the half of us who even bother to vote, nearly half of those voters didn't vote for this moron, myself included.
 

feakbeak

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 16, 2003
925
1
Michigan
Great, I live in the second-dumbest blue state. We're not even averaging 100!

Mississippi has an average of 85. According to a chart I found that is only one point away from being classified as "Borderline Intellectual Functioning". How's that for a state motto?

Mississippi: Borderline Intellectual Functioning
 

Studawg7

macrumors regular
May 15, 2004
213
0
Cville, VA
dont politicize, but open the conversation to whats important

ok, I ll let the "dust" settle on this article. I just read it on cnet and now on here. I am sure others will be reading it soon. I say lets not talk about bush this and bush that or the US is this or the US is that. Open the discussion to whats important:

What is the difference between US control of root files and some other organization? Would it really make an improvement for anyone, including the US?

I ll leave my personal comments to myself and I hope everyone else does too.
 

feakbeak

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 16, 2003
925
1
Michigan
While it was not my intent to have this thread get too politicized I don't feel throwing in my personal opinions towards the current US administration are completely irrelevant to this topic. Under the Bush administration the US has acted more unilaterally in foreign/global affairs. I suppose if the political aspect gets too out of hand this thread could be moved to the political forum.

This article contains both technical and political ramifications. The root DNS servers are the foundation of the DNS server system that allow internet names such as macrumors.com to be translated into an IP address so that the request can be routed to the correct the server. While many countries have root domains specific to their country such as co.uk for Britain most/all of the large country-independent domains like .com, .net and .org are hosted by these root DNS servers. By maintaining control over these servers the US holds a large amount of power over the internet. These servers could be manipulated to block certain domain names from being resolved properly or if shutdown would really screw up the DNS server system. Since the Internet is a global system used by all countries, it should probably be regulated by an independent organization. I would rather see it regulated by a department of the UN. ICANN has been rather weak in its practical power to police the Internet.

I'm not expert on how the DNS server system works globally or any of the details on how DNS propagation occurs or what other redundancies are in place that might allow for proper DNS resolution without these root servers. If there are any experts out there please correct me and/or fill in the blanks.
 
Doesn't the US already control the root DNS servers? So they would simply be keeping them instead of turning them over to someone else. I don't really see where this is a big issue, we haven't had DNS censorship so far and I don't know why that would change, particularly since ICANN will be in charge of them.
 

feakbeak

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 16, 2003
925
1
Michigan
anonymous161 said:
Doesn't the US already control the root DNS servers? So they would simply be keeping them instead of turning them over to someone else. I don't really see where this is a big issue, we haven't had DNS censorship so far and I don't know why that would change, particularly since ICANN will be in charge of them.
You have a point that this isn't like a hostile take over of those servers. However, the US was under agreement to relinquish control in 2006 and now they have just decided it would be best to continue to administer those servers themselves. They didn't ink a new agreement with ICANN. This power was not given to them by ICANN... they just decided that's what is best for the world. While I don't think this is earth-shattering news it is interesting and, IMO, shows some arrogance.
 

MongoTheGeek

macrumors 68040
feakbeak said:
You have a point that this isn't like a hostile take over of those servers. However, the US was under agreement to relinquish control in 2006 and now they have just decided it would be best to continue to administer those servers themselves. They didn't ink a new agreement with ICANN. This power was not given to them by ICANN... they just decided that's what is best for the world. While I don't think this is earth-shattering news it is interesting and, IMO, shows some arrogance.
Either that or a well founded distrust of ICANN.

No government should control the root DNS servers. Honestly I would like to see no one control all of them. They should be established in a topographically sensible manner and given over groups able to handle them. allow for rolling reallocations every 10 years or so,

Custodians should be groups like AT&T, AOL, BT, Deutche Telekom, MIT. Either ISPs, Phone Companies or major universities. Microsoft might even make a good choice. The idea is to pick people who have a vested interest in stability and to devolve power from a central location.
 

feakbeak

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 16, 2003
925
1
Michigan
MongoTheGeek said:
Either that or a well founded distrust of ICANN.

No government should control the root DNS servers. Honestly I would like to see no one control all of them. They should be established in a topographically sensible manner and given over groups able to handle them. allow for rolling reallocations every 10 years or so,

Custodians should be groups like AT&T, AOL, BT, Deutche Telekom, MIT. Either ISPs, Phone Companies or major universities. Microsoft might even make a good choice. The idea is to pick people who have a vested interest in stability and to devolve power from a central location.
I completely agree with you. Having the major DNS servers distributed and maintained by several different organizations working together would be the best solution. I find that highly unlikely to occur.

Although it may not be best for ICANN to run them alone, I find it interesting that they are ignoring the present agreement and instead are doing what they believe is best (retaining the control of these servers themselves) rather than seeking a solution that better suits of the industry and the global community, such as the solution you propose.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,537
7,787
CT
EJBasile said:
CT the richest state, with the highest IQs. :)

(too bad we have so many corrupt government workers though)
Ha, one of them is in jail tho.
:)
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,537
7,787
CT
feakbeak said:
Link to article

As an American, all I can say is "Damn, we're arrogant."

Here's an interesting section of the article:

WTF? I doubt Bush can even spell the word Internet and I'm certain that he has no clue what domain name resolution is about.

Edit: At some point if the rest of the world rises up to slay us after we continue to pull more of these arrogant and selfish maneuvers please keep in mind that of the half of us who even bother to vote, nearly half of those voters didn't vote for this moron, myself included.
Wait didnt' AL Gore claim to invent the internet.
:p
 

aloofman

macrumors 68020
Dec 17, 2002
2,206
0
Socal
anonymous161 said:
Doesn't the US already control the root DNS servers? So they would simply be keeping them instead of turning them over to someone else. I don't really see where this is a big issue, we haven't had DNS censorship so far and I don't know why that would change, particularly since ICANN will be in charge of them.
The propaganda presentation is more revealing than the actual policy change (or lack of one, rather). Any attempt to more closely regulate the root servers would cause more headaches than it's worth to the government.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
I am glad to see the Internet in this government's hands. At least we Republicans will take care of it as we do with all other technology (and all other policies for that matter). ;)

Al Gore lied. He never made the Internet and he will never have rights to it. Good thing it won't be in his corrupt hands.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
jelloshotsrule said:
how is he corrupt?
I hope you mean how is he NOT corrupt. It starts with lying and it ends in policies. Anybody who goes for killing unborn children should belong on death row the last place they belong is in office. Mass murder in the US is a lot worse than the minor death that occurs in Iraq. Remember the price of freedom isn't free. Lives will be lost for a good cause. Mark my words.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,061
GodBless said:
I am glad to see the Internet in this government's hands. At least we Republicans will take care of it as we do with all other technology (and all other policies for that matter). ;)

Al Gore lied. He never made the Internet and he will never have rights to it. Good thing it won't be in his corrupt hands.
I can get a full list of bad things Republicans did in the past. For example

1) Watergate

2) Great Depression

3) The Gilded Age.

4) Letting their beliefs take control of the actions they took in the Clinton years. Revenge for Watergate.

Those are the major things that happened when Republicans were in power. But, I would not call all of them corrupt since I am a Democrat and not a Republican. I will not vote for every Democrat that runs. That would be stupid and could lead us to an unbalance of power unlike what we seen so far because we would only vote for the person who is representing the party. Also, just because Gore is a Democrat and you rule Democrats=corrupt,doesn't mean he is corrupt. Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr, Thomas Jefferson, Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, and Taft being republicans doesn't make them corrupt either. Now I am not saying Democrats can't be corrupt. They can be corrupt and so can republicans.

Anybody who goes for killing unborn children should belong on death row the last place they belong is in office. Mass murder in the US is a lot worse than the minor death that occurs in Iraq. Remember the price of freedom isn't free. Lives will be lost for a good cause. Mark my words.
So our troops are minor deaths? They're disposable? If you take a look of what this country stands for, you can see why Gore supports abortion. This country was based on freedom. Now Freedom does have its limits, but abortion isn't an example. Abortion doesn't infringe on another rights. It is the parents decision to get an abortion or not. The government shouldn't get in their way.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
GodBless said:
I hope you mean how is he NOT corrupt. It starts with lying and it ends in policies. Anybody who goes for killing unborn children should belong on death row the last place they belong is in office. Mass murder in the US is a lot worse than the minor death that occurs in Iraq. Remember the price of freedom isn't free. Lives will be lost for a good cause. Mark my words.
So if Bush has killed pregnant women in Iraq, would you support his execution as well?