All your root servers belong to Uncle Sam
-
BBC News article[^]. Given how ICANN has been carrying on recently, I think I'm quite happy about this.
The US principles, laid out by a senior official come at a time when the United Nations is discussing giving poorer nations a greater say in how the internet is managed. Why would anyone want to "give" something like this to "poorer nations"? They need a new toy? By their status as a poorer nation it is believed they'll run it more effeciantly? Honestly, I know I seem a bit caustic to the idea, and I am, but I just don't see any benefit to moving or releasing these servers to another nation based on the fact they are "poorer". Jerry Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated--Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons Toasty0.com Ladder League (beta) My Grandkids
-
BBC News article[^]. Given how ICANN has been carrying on recently, I think I'm quite happy about this.
Given the internet's importance to the world's economy, it is essential that the underlying DNS of the internet remain stable and secure So why keep it in one country under one organisation's control? Isn't that essentially having a single point of failure? cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Given the internet's importance to the world's economy, it is essential that the underlying DNS of the internet remain stable and secure So why keep it in one country under one organisation's control? Isn't that essentially having a single point of failure? cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Isn't that essentially having a single point of failure? ...and a single point of control.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
Given the internet's importance to the world's economy, it is essential that the underlying DNS of the internet remain stable and secure So why keep it in one country under one organisation's control? Isn't that essentially having a single point of failure? cheers, Chris Maunder
-
BBC News article[^]. Given how ICANN has been carrying on recently, I think I'm quite happy about this.
I've gotta say - there is an awful lot of fuss about this, and i can't find a whole lot of thought behind it. So Gallagher is doing a bit of brown-nosing, and in an effort to ingratiate himself with the Bush administration he adopts their policy of "verbally piss on other countries whenever there is an opportunity to do so". Yeah, it's probably a tad offensive, but at this point anyone not already offended is probably immune. As for the real effects of the decision... nil. ICANN isn't exactly anyone's great white hope - they might to a marginally better job of things, but probably quite the opposite. Just one more thing for politicians to rant about.
My god, you're a genius! - Jörgen Sigvardsson, The Lounge
-
The US principles, laid out by a senior official come at a time when the United Nations is discussing giving poorer nations a greater say in how the internet is managed. Why would anyone want to "give" something like this to "poorer nations"? They need a new toy? By their status as a poorer nation it is believed they'll run it more effeciantly? Honestly, I know I seem a bit caustic to the idea, and I am, but I just don't see any benefit to moving or releasing these servers to another nation based on the fact they are "poorer". Jerry Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated--Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons Toasty0.com Ladder League (beta) My Grandkids
Toasty0 wrote: Why would anyone want to "give" something like this to "poorer nations"? Because the previous mode of operation was to pretty much dump on anyone who didn't have money and influence. Gov't or otherwise. Let's face it - it's probably just luck that you haven't lost your domain to the Malt-O-Meal Company yet.
Firefox? CodeProject? GreaseMonkey? A better Life?
-
Then Bush wouldn't have full control and we know how that is not ok with him! Besides why would he use logic now???
-
Given the internet's importance to the world's economy, it is essential that the underlying DNS of the internet remain stable and secure So why keep it in one country under one organisation's control? Isn't that essentially having a single point of failure? cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: So why keep it in one country under one organisation's control? Isn't that essentially having a single point of failure? Sorry, Chris, that doesn't pass the smell test. You've made an assertion based upon an event that for all intents and purposes hasn't happened. It is based on an assumption that has been disproved already by the test of time. So, can you offer a more compelling reason other than "it's American so it most be bad"? Jerry Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated--Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons Toasty0.com Ladder League (beta) My Grandkids
-
Chris Maunder wrote: So why keep it in one country under one organisation's control? Isn't that essentially having a single point of failure? Sorry, Chris, that doesn't pass the smell test. You've made an assertion based upon an event that for all intents and purposes hasn't happened. It is based on an assumption that has been disproved already by the test of time. So, can you offer a more compelling reason other than "it's American so it most be bad"? Jerry Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated--Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons Toasty0.com Ladder League (beta) My Grandkids
I'm sorry - are you saying that planning for the failure of a critical point is a useless exercise if that failure hasn't occurred? Am I missing something here? Toasty0 wrote: So, can you offer a more compelling reason other than "it's American so it most be bad"? If this was the UK, or Russia, or even New Zealand controlling the servers I would make the same statement. Don't put words in my mouth. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Then Bush wouldn't have full control and we know how that is not ok with him! Besides why would he use logic now???
-
I'm sorry - are you saying that planning for the failure of a critical point is a useless exercise if that failure hasn't occurred? Am I missing something here? Toasty0 wrote: So, can you offer a more compelling reason other than "it's American so it most be bad"? If this was the UK, or Russia, or even New Zealand controlling the servers I would make the same statement. Don't put words in my mouth. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: New Zealand ;-)
