http://news.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029694,39190545,00.htm

U.S. to retain control of Internet domain names
Declan McCullagh
CNET News.com

The Bush administration announced on Thursday that the U.S. government will not hand over control of the Internet to any other organisation, a surprise move that could cause an international bun fight.

At the moment, the U.S. government maintains control of the Internet's "root" -- the master file that lists what top-level domains are authorised -- but has indicated in the past that it would transfer that responsibility to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

The new principles, outlined by Assistant Commerce Secretary Michael Gallagher, say the U.S. government will "maintain its historic role in authorising changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file." In addition, the principles say, the U.S. government will continue to maintain "oversight" over ICANN and prevent its "focus" from straying from technical coordination.

Gallagher's blunt announcement to a wireless conference in Washington, D.C. -- just a few days before ICANN's next meeting in Luxembourg -- hints that the Bush administration would like to keep the non-profit group, which is based in Marina Del Rey, California, on a short leash. ICANN has become the target of criticism as its budget has zoomed from $7 million in 2003 to around $16 million today.

Thursday's announcement also represents an effective snub to a United Nations process that is set to culminate in a summit in Tunisia in November. One gripe of the summit participants has been poorer nations should have more say in the way the Internet is operated.

At one level, the Bush administration's announcement is largely symbolic: While in theory the United States can influence what country codes are permitted and who will run each, it's unlikely to make any procedural changes. But the more assertive tack promises to vex nations like Pakistan and Brazil that have been outspoken critics of the United States' influence online.

About five years ago, the Commerce Department told the European Commission that "these remaining powers retained by the United States DoC regarding ICANN should be effectively divested," according to a European government report.

Also reported here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/30/internet.control.ap/index.html

Lots of implications. But can you really blame the US for adopting
that stance?

Pretty interesting! I heard people wanted UNO to take over ICANN / total control of domains? Is that true?

I'm strill trying to figure out what ICANN is doiing with over $14million annually and still not turn a profit.
They don't maintain any root systems do they?

No - not to mention ICANN doesnt regulate any CCTLD - so any of the icann rules and polices dont apply to ccTLD registrys.

Personally I dont see a problem with the US Govt. maintaining control. They basically created the process in which it runs - they should have a majority say in the way that it works and runs. Besides - when was the last time the root servers broke? Who wants to take that chance with other "poorer" countries like the article states?

Originally posted by taheri6
Besides - when was the last time the root servers broke?

So far it's been more than 2 years since that happened:

http://www.networkmagazine.com/article/NMG20021223S0008

That says that it was due to "hackers" and they did DOS attack that didnt even disrupt the traffic. I dont count that as "breaking" :D

:angry: IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/01/bush_net_policy/

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,68065,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002354178_internet01.html

Already posted


http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=420547

I don't understand when you say "it was only a matter of time". A matter of time what? The [U.S.] Government has always monitored and controlled the root servers.

Originally posted by taheri6
That says that it was due to "hackers" and they did DOS attack that didnt even disrupt the traffic. I dont count that as "breaking" :D

Well...I thought I'd just post that anyway to mention of anything
negative that happened to the root servers. :D

From the last link:
In a worst-case scenario, countries refusing to accept U.S. control could establish their own separate Domain Name System and thus fracture the Internet into more than one network. That means two users typing the same domain name could reach entirely different Web sites, depending on where they are

I dislike that idea. I certainly wouldn't want anyone having the same e-mail address as me be it myusername@yahoo.COM or mail@MYDOMAINNAME.com/net/org

my username@yahoo.COM is a different address from myusername@yahoo.CA/(any country extension here). I don't like this idea. Why don't we get a www.WEBSITE.usa or www.WEBSITE.ca or www.WEBSITE.any-ountry-extension

So much for power trip. Look at what happened to china? The USA government didn't create the internet but someone in the USA created it. It was created by people who aren't as important as 'government' or 'president' or 'senator' so on.

Who is ICANN? How are they related to the internet?
Internet overseeing organisation ICANN has imposed what amounts to a $2 tax on all new domains.

It was U.S. tax payer dollars and American scientists which created the Internet for the protection of U.S. citizens during a time of war so our leaders could communicate without needing a centralized telephone network. I'm all for keeping it in U.S. hands. I don't really see why this is newsworthy, either.

The reason for Only a Matter of Time observation is the following:


"When the internet is being increasingly utilized for private use, by businesses and so forth, there is a societal debate about whether it's befitting to have one country maintaining checks on that," said Masahiko Fujimoto of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications' data communications division. "It's likely to fuel that debate."




Some countries have pressed to move oversight to an international body, such as the U.N. International Telecommunication Union, although the U.S. government has historically had that role because it funded much of the Internet's early development.

ICANN does not run all of the root name servers though. The last I knew they only ran one. I'm not even sure if they are still running it. They probably are. But a few years ago it wasn't even anycasted. I don't think it is even anycasted now.

The U.S. does run two of the 13 root name servers (G and H if my memory is correct). The DoD has one and the Army has the other.

But $14mil to run one computer (or cluster) is one heck of a dedicated server price that ICANN charges! That is one deal that we would all love to have. That is just a cash cow that pays many nice salaries.

If I were the ICANN I would take the cash and not rock the boat. If they rock it too hard they might find themselves offering that machine right here on WebHostingTalk for $99 a month.

Originally posted by varg
It was U.S. tax payer dollars and American scientists which created the Internet for the protection of U.S. citizens during a time of war so our leaders could communicate without needing a centralized telephone network. I'm all for keeping it in U.S. hands. I don't really see why this is newsworthy, either.
Agreed.

Some countries have pressed to move oversight to an international body, such as the U.N. International Telecommunication Union, although the U.S. government has historically had that role because it funded much of the Internet's early development.
The U.N. is very inefficient.
They would probably screw the whole thing up and create a huge mess.

Also we are the ones who decided to share the internet with the rest of the world and allow other countries to access the internet. So all those countries that are complaing have no reason to be complaining.

[The U.N. is very inefficient.
They would probably screw the whole thing up and create a huge mess.]

Part of the problem, is that on one side you have countries like China who actively sensor what is accessable online, and want to promote restrictions on the "NET" as a whole, on yet another side you have countries who have ties to Terriost organizations. I ask you, would the internet be secure place if Sadam had access to controling servers? (yes I know that's security is a debatable topic)

The rest apears to be politics (who, Who likes or dislikes)

How about we keep the internet based where it is and we loan out Bush for an International Dunking Booth for Charity :-D

w00t! I'm all for that

I woulden't want Korea managing my domain name. Kthnx.

If US scientists made it, they keep it. Simple.

I completely agree with what bitfuzzy said. China has all the censorship going on there, blocking access to sites, hell they even blocked access to enom.com as well as their entire redirectors - for no good (apparent) reason.

South america wants to have a greater say in how its run, but they have no money to contribute, and to be honest, most of their scientists dont really have a great understanding of the concepts. That can be fixed of course with time, money and training. But the point I suppose is that it will undoubtedly cost the US more money and time to get rid of it then if they kept it.

Not to mention the security aspect, and the control of censorship or lack there of.

Originally posted by taheri6
I completely agree with what bitfuzzy said. China has all the censorship going on there, blocking access to sites, hell they even blocked access to enom.com as well as their entire redirectors - for no good (apparent) reason.

South america wants to have a greater say in how its run, but they have no money to contribute, and to be honest, most of their scientists dont really have a great understanding of the concepts. That can be fixed of course with time, money and training. But the point I suppose is that it will undoubtedly cost the US more money and time to get rid of it then if they kept it.

Not to mention the security aspect, and the control of censorship or lack there of.

Ah! like the American government does not create its own censorship ?

Living in the UK and being able to watch the news from both sides of the pond it is hard to believe both sides are reporting the same conflict in Iraq.

Does American firms like Enom and Godaddy not create their own forms of censorship.

Pot calling kettle black comes to mind

But hell yes lets call it terrorism or homeland security and everything will be all right.

Living in the UK and being able to watch the news from both sides of the pond it is hard to believe both sides are reporting the same conflict in Iraq.


Yeah, it's unbelievable how biased (and wrong) the news is on the the east side of the Atlantic Ocean. :stickout::emlaugh:

If you think UK and US news is different you should try watching a report in Italy, Greece or better yet France! Now that's come contrast!


But still... I'm really trying to figure out where that $14 mil is going..... Do they (ICANN) have a balance sheet and do they have to show expenses since they are non-profit?:confused:

I wouldn't be so much worried about the US and the Internet. I'm more worried that the ICANN can just increase fees and setting budgets whenever they want and no one is stopping them. If the US does not stop this soon maybe the US should give up control to a country that understands the worth of $14 mil.

And the budget I'm looking for is a little more detailed then the one shown at http://www.icann.org/financials/budget-fy04-05-06oct04.html#invoicing.

I do believe non-profit records are pubilicly obtainable.

For the record, I never said US policies were 100% correct, nor did I say Home land security was a valid argument (in fact if anything I don't see much difference since it's establishment except for alot of FUD)

While I do have "my" reservations about Bush (he can't open his mouth with out that stupid smirk) our troops do have my full support.

I am wondering about how much other countries have invested in the technology, the up keep, and upgrading of the internet.
I don't mean for it's country, but the infastructure.

If there's that much mis trust, perhaps each country should create their own network infastructure, and request it be connected, as well as inter connect with outside countries.

Then you can play in your own sand box, with your friends, and not worry about that Troublesome USA kicking over your mud pies.

Perhaps this is starting to sound a bit harsh, and I do appologize.

I get it, Europe has alot of issues with US policies, News break: So do alot of US Citizens. But what boils my onions, is that almot every European that has a gripe about policy takes it out on a US Citizen as if we directly were involved in it.

We get watered down news? perhaps.. but I dont see any links going up to provide a little insight, either.

Or perhaps, a few news reports seen directly reflect a countries irritation rather than impatial reporting. It's all in the presentation.

Or better yet, some countries should NOT be connected :D

All this talk of the war and news really isnt immediately relevant to the discussion at hand is it?

Originally posted by bitfuzzy
We get watered down news? perhaps.. but I dont see any links going up to provide a little insight, either.
[/B]

Opening ones eyes actually helps now and again. :stickout:

Just one note of humbridge though I am Scottish NOT European, this current trend to link the thoughts and ways of a group of nations into one convenient ideaology is typical of the cutural misunderstanding from a country I honestly am proud to be allies with.

So - America started the internet and should keep control. OK then can Scotland have all its tarmac back oh yes and just for the hell of it I think we should keep control of the worlds stocks of Penicillin

The internet is a global community and we need global answers and sorry but that does include countries like China et all.

I wouldn't be so much worried about the US and the Internet. I'm more worried that the ICANN can just increase fees and setting budgets whenever they want and no one is stopping them. If the US does not stop this soon maybe the US should give up control to a country that understands the worth of $14 mil.

That is a much more valid point

Originally posted by Goldwing
That is a much more valid point


Honestly... How did the ICANN budget fo from $8.3 million in 2003-2004 to $15.83 million in 2004-2005?

What the heck got twice as expensive in one year?!?!?!

Bandwidth is lower now, plus you know they shouldn't be paying that much in bandwidth as it doens't take much bandwidth to run those things (relative to hosting).

Opening ones eyes actually helps now and again.

My eyes are wide open. I have no misconceptions about our government (I didn't vote for Bush the first or Second time), and I "KNOW" we don't get the full story on anything reported.


Just one note of humbridge though I am Scottish NOT European, this current trend to link the thoughts and ways of a group of nations into one convenient ideaology is typical of the cutural misunderstanding

My apologies, I ment no disrespect


So - America started the internet and should keep control. OK then can Scotland have all its tarmac back oh yes and just for the hell of it I think we should keep control of the worlds stocks of Penicillin


That depends, does Scotland build, and maintain phyically and financially the foundations for those items? If so sure.

Which Country should control it?
Can you honestly tell me you'd be comfortable knowing that China or Korea had control of the Internets Root servers?


The internet is a global community and we need global answers and sorry but that does include countries like China et all.


Agreed, but Global answers, and even participation are a far cry from giving full control.

Originally posted by bitfuzzy
Which Country should control it?
Can you honestly tell me you'd be comfortable knowing that China or Korea had control of the Internets Root servers?
[/B]

No country should "control it" so to speak, the internet has far outgrown its building blocks that were USA based, ICANN contrary to popular belief does not control the internet only a part of it. "Control" of the internet is already diversified - Pandora's box is already open..

As for China and Korea - hell I don't mind as long as it is not England :stickout:

No country should "control it" so to speak, the internet has far outgrown its building blocks that were USA based, ICANN contrary to popular belief does not control the internet only a part of it. "Control" of the internet is already diversified - Pandora's box is already open..

This is true.
I don't know. It would be a glorious day if a impartial body representing each nation could be assembled to make sure each of the respective nation had a active voice in the decisions regarding the NET.

But with the fact NATO, and The UN don't really work as they should/did I'm really not sure where the solution lies. I do agree that there needs to be a fair way to implement control, and that each nation should have the ability to rest in the knowledge that they won't be shut off because somebody in another country didn't like their response to something.

I just dont know how or if this could be accomplished.


As for China and Korea - hell I don't mind as long as it is not England :stickout:

lol

Originally posted by bitfuzzy


But with the fact NATO, and The UN don't really work as they should/did I'm really not sure where the solution lies. I do agree that there needs to be a fair way to implement control, and that each nation should have the ability to rest in the knowledge that they won't be shut off because somebody in another country didn't like their response to something.


That is quite true. Even with regards to china - they currently just block access to several domains and IP blocks by removing routing tables or adding null routes to their routers in their countrys main pipeline out - so even if there was a way for the entire world to collaborate I fear that that kind of behavior could never be curbed completely since each GO/NGO would still have control over its own infrastructure.

Finally reported in CircleID:

http://www.circleid.com/article/1130_0_1_0_C/

http://www.circleid.com/article/1129_0_1_0_C/

Interesting views to say the least. Thanks for the post Dave!