NTIA will control the root name servers?
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/07/01/HNinternetdirectories_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/07/01/HNinternetdirectories_1.html Is this operational or dross? Basically it sounds like the U.S. Gov't (NTIA)/U.S. Dept of Commerce will take back control of the root name servers from ICANN at some point. I suppose they might just contract operation of them to ICANN, but its unclear to me. I'm hesitant to post because if this were a huge deal I would have expected someone to beat me to the punch. But then again, its a holiday weekend in the U.S. Deepak
Basically it sounds like the U.S. Gov't (NTIA)/U.S. Dept of Commerce will take back control of the root name servers from ICANN at some point.
no. they never let go of it. a change to a nameserver for an african cctld has to go through the us dept of commerce. they are saving us from terrorists such as liman. don't you feel safe? randy
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 03:28:23PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
Basically it sounds like the U.S. Gov't (NTIA)/U.S. Dept of Commerce will take back control of the root name servers from ICANN at some point.
no. they never let go of it. a change to a nameserver for an african cctld has to go through the us dept of commerce. they are saving us from terrorists such as liman. don't you feel safe?
Not that anyone around here thinks Declan McCullagh is an authority or anything (:-), but Kai Ryssdal interviewed him about this on tonight's Marketplace; the piece, modulo a couple of "root server"'s and "web address"'s, is here: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2005/07/01/PM200507012.html Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Designer +-Internetworking------+----------+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://bestpractices.wikicities.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Is this operational or dross?
Both, but mainly it's a one page press release from the Dep't of Commerce: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm ICANN exists because of a DOC contact which you can find at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ ICANN's leadership has long claimed and probably believed that the DOC would eventually cut them free. Of course other governments have never been thrilled that the root belongs to the US Gov't, but treatment of country domains has in practice carefully avoided antagonizing governments, dating back to the Haiti redelegation in the Postel era. The DOC is merely saying "don't hold your breath." Given ICANN's less than stellar record, nobody should be surprised. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. PS: Anyone else going to Luxmbourg next week?
On 2 Jul 2005 11:56:07 -0000, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
ICANN's leadership has long claimed and probably believed that the DOC would eventually cut them free. Of course other governments have never been thrilled that the root belongs to the US Gov't, but treatment of country domains has in practice carefully avoided antagonizing governments, dating back to the Haiti redelegation in the Postel era.
The DOC is merely saying "don't hold your breath." Given ICANN's less than stellar record, nobody should be surprised.
I at least kind of expected this.. and the language in that paper is heavily geared towards "status quo". So far what we have is a lot of people who dont like icann, or perhaps have got disillusioned with it for various reasons, sounding off on the IP list and elsewhere .. and a lot of comment on various ops and public policy lists. What worries me is the tendency among several governments to send in submissions to the WSIS/WGIG process in support of greater government involvement and/or oversight in the process (which is not necessarily a bad thing) but quoting a lot of wrong reasons, and [conveniently?] forgetting the difference domain names and IP addresses on a fairly regular basis However governments are going to sooner or later get themselves a stake in this process - though hopefully not by the almost anarchical means being suggested so far. Will be very tough to fight that - especially as the language in the paper also leaves the door open for more government involvement, and recognizes the fact that for several governments, ccTLD is [or has become, once this brouhaha started] a sovereignity issue. Someone have any idea for a workable compromise that bridges the current ITU positions with the status quo? Answers that wont work and have been fairly freely bandied about - "get rid of ICANN" and "damn the ITU", or various more polite and diplomatic variants of those .. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Already entire nations are dropping ICANN. China for one and now Turkey. Istanbul, June 23, 2005 A Top Level Domain (TLD) system has been launched in Turkey as the result of an alliance between the Turkish Informatics Association (TBD) and Unified Identity Technology (UNIDT), officials announced on Wednesday. Top Level Domain is the portion of a traditional domain name that comes after the dot. The generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) are: .com, .net and .org, the other type of TLDs include the country code Top Level Domains (ccTLD), which are assigned to all countries and their dependencies such as .tr for Turkey. Top Level Domains (TLD) will be put up for sale by Turkish Internet service providers, Turkish Informatics Association Chairman Turhan Mentes said. Mentes said the deal with UNIDT might offer new possibilities for Turkish corporations, as they will be free to use their own names as domain names on the Internet. Access to TLDs is supported by a federation called Public-Root, which emerged due to shortcomings in the existing Internet infrastructure and monopolistic tendencies, Mentes said. TLDs also single out search results, instead of hundreds or thousands of results one gets when using the search engines on ordinary servers. Mentes said Public-Root supports the existing Internet domains and one of the 13 root servers worldwide is located in Ankara. Taken from http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=16484 (Registration required to access full article) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists@gmail.com> To: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>; <deepak@ai.net> Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 9:18 PM Subject: Re: NTIA will control the root name servers? On 2 Jul 2005 11:56:07 -0000, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
ICANN's leadership has long claimed and probably believed that the DOC would eventually cut them free. Of course other governments have never been thrilled that the root belongs to the US Gov't, but treatment of country domains has in practice carefully avoided antagonizing governments, dating back to the Haiti redelegation in the Postel era.
The DOC is merely saying "don't hold your breath." Given ICANN's less than stellar record, nobody should be surprised.
I at least kind of expected this.. and the language in that paper is heavily geared towards "status quo". So far what we have is a lot of people who dont like icann, or perhaps have got disillusioned with it for various reasons, sounding off on the IP list and elsewhere .. and a lot of comment on various ops and public policy lists. What worries me is the tendency among several governments to send in submissions to the WSIS/WGIG process in support of greater government involvement and/or oversight in the process (which is not necessarily a bad thing) but quoting a lot of wrong reasons, and [conveniently?] forgetting the difference domain names and IP addresses on a fairly regular basis However governments are going to sooner or later get themselves a stake in this process - though hopefully not by the almost anarchical means being suggested so far. Will be very tough to fight that - especially as the language in the paper also leaves the door open for more government involvement, and recognizes the fact that for several governments, ccTLD is [or has become, once this brouhaha started] a sovereignity issue. Someone have any idea for a workable compromise that bridges the current ITU positions with the status quo? Answers that wont work and have been fairly freely bandied about - "get rid of ICANN" and "damn the ITU", or various more polite and diplomatic variants of those .. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
On 03/07/05, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) <nanog@adns.net> wrote:
Already entire nations are dropping ICANN. China for one and now Turkey.
You know something .. the turks, or at least one minor government / industry department there, seem to have been drinking the public root koolaid.
(TBD) and Unified Identity Technology (UNIDT), officials announced on Wednesday.
Access to TLDs is supported by a federation called Public-Root, which emerged due to
Oh well As for china they have been saying a whole lot of things, several quite contradictory to each other For now they're [I think] pressing for more accountablity + oversight role for the ICANN GAC .. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 03/07/05, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) <nanog@adns.net> wrote:
Already entire nations are dropping ICANN. China for one and now Turkey.
You know something .. the turks, or at least one minor government / industry department there, seem to have been drinking the public root koolaid.
(TBD) and Unified Identity Technology (UNIDT), officials announced on Wednesday.
Access to TLDs is supported by a federation called Public-Root, which emerged due to
Oh well
As for china they have been saying a whole lot of things, several quite contradictory to each other
For now they're [I think] pressing for more accountablity + oversight role for the ICANN GAC ..
How about http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/ Try to see their homepage! You dont do bussiness with them? But you are wearing their shoes. Try to send them an email! You dont talk to such fools? But they are your customers. ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 42567 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN MX 10 mail.xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN SOA ns5.ce.net.cn. tech.ce.net.cn. 2004072009 3600 900 1209600 1800 xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1575 IN A 210.51.169.151 xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN NS ns5.ce.net.cn. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN NS ns5.ce.net.cn. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: mail.xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN A 210.51.171.29 ns5.ce.net.cn. 1574 IN A 210.51.171.200 ;; Query time: 747 msec ;; SERVER: 192.168.208.228#53(192.168.208.228) ;; WHEN: Sun Jul 3 09:29:13 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 191 One quarter of total internet populations needs to talk to them. Chinese root-servers or Public-Root. ICANN does not want them. They dont want ICANN either. European ISPs and Asian ISPs do change to the Public-Root because their customers need to send emails to each other. Curiously enough their is no SPAM on Public-Root email addresses. I thought the spammers were located in Asia and Europe only? In Africa there is not much internet technology yet. They build on chinese technology because it is cheap and China supports their needs. What if their need is censoring and perfect control? And who controls ICANN? I am afraid they are out of control - reading their mailing lists and reading the people who cry for unsubscribe. Have a nice weekend, Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) +1-360-226-6583-9563 (INAIC) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason
On 03/07/05, Peter Dambier <peter@peter-dambier.de> wrote:
http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/
Try to see their homepage!
I cant.
You dont do bussiness with them? But you are wearing their shoes.
And who controls ICANN? I am afraid they are out of control - reading their mailing lists and reading the people who cry for unsubscribe.
You are confusing their discussion lists with their actual decision making process, I fear
Peter Dambier <peter@peter-dambier.de> writes:
European ISPs and Asian ISPs do change to the Public-Root because their customers need to send emails to each other. Curiously enough their is no SPAM on Public-Root email addresses. I thought the spammers were located in Asia and Europe only?
Curiously enough, on two machines I run where there is no externally visible MTA, I don't get any SPAM (sic) either. (yes, I know I'm gonna get private mail about feeding the trolls on this one.) ---Rob
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:44:56 +0200, Peter Dambier said:
http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/
Try to see their homepage!
I can't help it if they disregard RFC2826...
ICANN does not want them. They dont want ICANN either.
This doesn't change the technical issues in rfc2826.
European ISPs and Asian ISPs do change to the Public-Root because their customers need to send emails to each other. Curiously enough their is no SPAM on Public-Root email addresses. I thought the spammers were located in Asia and Europe only?
(A) You thought wrong. Just because a large percentage (not "only") arrives from Asia and Europe doesn't mean the *spammer* is located there, any more than the fact that this e-mail went through one of Merit's servers means that I'm actually in Michigan. (B) Spammers send to addresses that are likely to get them money. Thus, the lack of spam to public-root addresses isn't surprising. (C) The fact that I *do* see spam advertising the availability of public-root addresses should be an adequate predictor of what will happen if said addresses get any significant uptake.
In Africa there is not much internet technology yet. They build on chinese technology because it is cheap and China supports their needs.
What if their need is censoring and perfect control?
Go read this: http://65.246.255.51/rfc/rfc3675.txt And ask yourself (a) why did that URL work at all, and (b) whether censoring via top-level domain is likely to work.
On Jul 3, 2005, at 5:28 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:44:56 +0200, Peter Dambier said:
http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/
Try to see their homepage!
I can't help it if they disregard RFC2826...
we talk about controlling nameservers right? So why should they care about an RFC when they have they re own internet ?
CANN does not want them. They dont want ICANN either.
This doesn't change the technical issues in rfc2826.
becasue there is not an TECHNICAL issue
Go read this: http://65.246.255.51/rfc/rfc3675.txt And ask yourself (a) why did that URL work at all, and (b) whether censoring via top-level domain is likely to work.
ask yourself if you are on the right list ?
At 11:28 AM 7/3/2005, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:44:56 +0200, Peter Dambier said:
http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/
Try to see their homepage!
I can't help it if they disregard RFC2826...
ICANN does not want them. They dont want ICANN either.
This doesn't change the technical issues in rfc2826.
European ISPs and Asian ISPs do change to the Public-Root because their customers need to send emails to each other. Curiously enough their is no SPAM on Public-Root email addresses. I thought the spammers were located in Asia and Europe only?
(A) You thought wrong. Just because a large percentage (not "only") arrives from Asia and Europe doesn't mean the *spammer* is located there, any more than the fact that this e-mail went through one of Merit's servers means that I'm actually in Michigan.
... Or that I'm in Vermont (or Virginia or California or Sweden (when I'm working)) but my mail ISP is in Maryland ...
(B) Spammers send to addresses that are likely to get them money. Thus, the lack of spam to public-root addresses isn't surprising.
(C) The fact that I *do* see spam advertising the availability of public-root addresses should be an adequate predictor of what will happen if said addresses get any significant uptake.
In Africa there is not much internet technology yet. They build on chinese technology because it is cheap and China supports their needs.
What if their need is censoring and perfect control?
Go read this: http://65.246.255.51/rfc/rfc3675.txt
And ask yourself (a) why did that URL work at all, and (b) whether censoring via top-level domain is likely to work.
As an interesting side note, my e-mail client (Eudora) helpfully popped up the following message when checking the above URL: "The host, http://65.246.255.52/rfc/rfc3675.txt, is a numerical IP address; most legitimate sites use names, not addresses." Besides some of the obvious comments (it was written by the Department of Redundancy Department), I think this shows that "we" really do need to keep legislators as informed as possible on the technical side of "How Things Work" to try and keep the hysteria to a minimum. Ted Fischer p.s. Valdis ... didn't know that you were in Vermont, too ;-)
*** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 12:41:23 EDT, Ted Fischer said:
Go read this: http://65.246.255.51/rfc/rfc3675.txt
And ask yourself (a) why did that URL work at all, and (b) whether censoring via top-level domain is likely to work.
As an interesting side note, my e-mail client (Eudora) helpfully popped up the following message when checking the above URL:
"The host, http://65.246.255.52/rfc/rfc3675.txt, is a numerical IP address; most legitimate sites use names, not addresses."
Of course, if you're a subversive visiting the site *because* somebody with jackbooted thugs has censored the DNS, said site probably isn't considered "legitimate" by those in power.... And it's a hopeless task - blocking by DNS isn't workable, and even blocking problematic sites by IP isn't workable. It's pretty easy to show that if you allow *any* traffic at all, there's covert channels available. Just take the bandwidth of the pipe, treat the censorship as "noise" (the more heavy-handed, the noiser), and work out the Shannon limit....
participants (11)
-
codewarrior＠cuseeme.de -
Deepak Jain -
Jay R. Ashworth -
John Levine -
John Palmer (NANOG Acct) -
Peter Dambier -
Randy Bush -
Robert E.Seastrom -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Ted Fischer -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu