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

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

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?

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 ..

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)

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 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://合联.公司/

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:
合联.公司. 1800 IN MX 10 mail.合联.公司.
合联.公司. 1800 IN SOA ns5.ce.net.cn. tech.ce.net.cn. 2004072009 3600 900 1209600 1800
合联.公司. 1575 IN A 210.51.169.151
合联.公司. 1800 IN NS ns5.ce.net.cn.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
合联.公司. 1800 IN NS ns5.ce.net.cn.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
mail.合联.公司. 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

http://合联.公司/

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

http://合联.公司/

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.

http://合联.公司/

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 ?

> http://合联.公司/
>
> 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 :wink:

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....