Turkey has switched Root-Servers

a message of 20 lines which said:

Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other
country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism.

The problem is that all gTLD are controlled only in the US (even more
than the root is). So, they are international only in name.

a message of 26 lines which said:

Well said! Other than government entities, I never understood why
anyone would want a country specific name.

So he can call upon the law of his country, rather than the law of the
state of California or Virginia?

Quite likely irrelevant. Some entity with a foobar.nu domain-of-convenience
is quite likely going to find a hard time getting onto a court calendar in Niue
unless they have a bit more than a domain name to establish jurisdiction.

Similarly for most other countries - the French court system isn't going to
want cases dropped on it just because there's a foobar.fr domain involved, unless
there's a French citizen or corporation involved - and at that point, the fact
that a French citizen or corporation involved will be the biggest point for
establishing jurisdiction.

Is there *any* court that will actually accept "But alldomains.com sold me a
domain name" as sufficient grounds *by itself* for establishing jurisdiction?

Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other
country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism.

The problem is that all gTLD are controlled only in the US (even more
than the root is). So, they are international only in name.

Obviously, I feel that that needs to change.

Tony

which part is controlled? the introduction of new TLD or the running of
the TLD services? I may be mistaken, again the slow reading is biting me,
but PIR and Melbourne-IT partnered to run .org, yes? (then passed the
operations on to Afilas and from there to ultradns?)

...

to operate our businesses. We have a right to operate our TLDs and

...

Why?

"I say so" is not a response. Use of the word "deserve" in a response
will get it deleted without a response.

I am violently sick every time I hear or read the term "right" misused
and thereby denigrated and devalued in this way. This is the first time
I have seen it here, I fear not the last.

How about this one:
  http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/
  Seems to be growing more files every day.
  
  Kind regards,
  Peter and Karin

Oh. Joe Baptista. Theres a name that adds an aura of legitimacy to
your organization. BTW, could you explain to me what an
"International Virtual Corporation" is?

matto

PS. Is there some sort of secret net.kook cabal which I was not
aware of?

--matt@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin><
              The only thing necessary for the triumph
              of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

Following on Steve's coattails, I'd like to put a plug in for the Swedish TLD (.SE) and applaud their introduction of DNSSEC:
    http://www.nic.se/english/nyheter/pr/2005-09-14?lang=en

May we all benefit from their experience.

PS - The RIPE NCC has also been introducing DNSSEC, but they aren't a ccTLD:
     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/dns-wg/2005/msg00159.html

PS. Is there some sort of secret net.kook cabal which I was not aware of?

i thought this (nanog) was it. maybe i'm not in the loop, though.

Paul,

That's the _secret_ part! :wink:

-Robert

Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection
http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211
"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

Actually, there's 2 cabals, with overlapping memberships, and any given
net.kook can be a member of -2 to 3 cabals (negative cabals being those that
have publicly disavowed your membership. I'd explain the 3 to you, but you
haven't shown that you know either of the secret handshakes :slight_smile:

ObNanog: The above has been shown to do a better job of explaining the actual
weirdness of how the Net actually operates in practice than any competing theory.
You don't believe me, map out all the kooks on all sides of the perennial root
debate.....

Ladies and Gentlemen,

take your seats and place your hands on the table please.

Ladies and Gentlemen east of the Atlantic Ocean - you may begin.

Ladies and Gentlemen west of the Atlantic Ocean - please wait until the night rises.

The disclosure may begin.

The rules may be found on

http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/

The site of the game:

Turkey?
The Netherlands?
Geneva?

The Americas?

The World

The players:

Corrupt gouvernments,
Not so corrupt gouvernments,
Members of religous cults,
Corrupt businessmen,
Not so corrupt businessmen,
Policemen,
Newsmen,
Netizens,
You and me

The outcome:

Yet another drama - we'll see

Tony Li wrote:

> .com is an abomination, as are the other gTLDs to a lesser
> extent. .gov,
> .mil, .edu, .info, and .biz need to be shifted under .us
> immediately, and
> everyone under .com, .net, and .org needs to be gradually moved
> under the
> appropriate part of the real DNS tree. I can live with .int
> continuing on,
> but only because no better solution immediately comes to mind.

Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other
country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The
Internet is only the second piece of truly global infrastructure. As
a key component in the ongoing trend towards a unified global
administration, we should do what we can to encourage cooperation and
equality across borders, not intensify their differences.

In general I agree with you. The primary exception being that if national
political interests want to press for local rules about specific strings
(like XXX) then those national interests belong in their designated part of
the name space. Polluting the global space with nationally inconsistent
rules about use will not help.

Tony

In general I agree with you. The primary exception being that if national
political interests want to press for local rules about specific strings
(like XXX) then those national interests belong in their designated part of
the name space. Polluting the global space with nationally inconsistent
rules about use will not help.

Are there national exceptions to international law? Seems to me that if no exceptions are permitted, then everyone is treated equally.

Tony

Tony Li wrote:

Are there national exceptions to international law? Seems to me that if no exceptions are permitted, then everyone is treated equally.

Yes there are.

E.g. NAZI sites and propaganda are prohibited in germany. They are welcome
in the u.s. That delivers a pseudo excuse for corrupt german politician to
censor sites like

This site is about curing illnesses related to bakteria. Medicine in
germany "does not believe in antibioatics".

I could not proof Hellenthal's site was censored.

Fact 1 - you could not reach it and gogogle would not find it.

Fact 2 - "friends" of dr. med. Julius Helenthal were teaching at the
same university were the german DNS was "politically corrected" (you
may use a 4 letter word starting with "s" or "f" to your liking :slight_smile:

I am afraid it might be the other way too, because using italian, french
or spanish speaking and located search engines gives results about sites
written in english. Sometimes the answer will be in cache only. Sometines
you will find a site you can bookmark and retrieve. Never will you find
that site using english speaking search engines.

Interestingly enough the sites I searched for were about "golf war syndrome"
and illnes related to bakteria. Please try to find "Dr. med. Nicholson"
and "mycoplasma bakteria".

If all war related syndromes might relate to mycoplasma bakteria and those
bakteria were to be found in oil fields it would suggest interesting thoughts.

If you would relate this to live found, several thousand meters deep under
ground at temparatures above 400 celsius (700 kelvin) you might relate this
to "the mad cow syndrome" but that information is censored too.

It might suggest there is oil everywhere - maybe even on the moon.

Who is interested in finding oil everywhere? Censored!

Who is interested in his citicens running away to the moon? Censored!

Not to mention mars. Censored!

There are very few counties where the internet is not censored. I believe
italy is one of them. They are so corrupt - they have bigger holes to
fill. That is why they dont have time to censor the internet.

I believe having more than two roots to chose from will make censoring more
difficult. That is why I support The Public-Root and I shall help mostly
any new root emerging.

From: Peter Dambier <peter@peter-dambier.de>
To: 'North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes' <nanog@merit.edu>

*plonk*

I have hardly ever seen someone post so much ... in so short
a time, even though it is a fellow German citizen. In a sad
way it was good reading until this post. Save the root zone
from him someone, and accuse the world, yeah...

Alexander,
thinking of the german word 'Depp' here

...

E.g. NAZI sites and propaganda are prohibited in germany. They are welcome
in the u.s. That delivers a pseudo excuse for corrupt german politician to

...

Without comment on the rest of this, I feel I must note that to most
people in the USA [including both corrupt and uncorrupt (if any)
politicians ;-)], such sites are definitely NOT welcome. They are
tolerated because of the principle of free speech. Please note the
immense difference, ye who believe in principles! ... However, if they
cross the line into promoting criminal activity, that is NOT tolerated.

Joseph S D Yao wrote:

...

E.g. NAZI sites and propaganda are prohibited in germany. They are welcome
in the u.s. That delivers a pseudo excuse for corrupt german politician to

...

Without comment on the rest of this, I feel I must note that to most
people in the USA [including both corrupt and uncorrupt (if any)
politicians ;-)], such sites are definitely NOT welcome. They are
tolerated because of the principle of free speech. Please note the
immense difference, ye who believe in principles! ... However, if they
cross the line into promoting criminal activity, that is NOT tolerated.

Please dont take me too very litteral on this.

1.) I have slept bad, because of problems with The Public-Root.

2.) I cannot think of anybody welcoming those sites.

But I am afraid those sites do give a pseudo excuse for censoring gouvernments.

It is a pseudo excuse.

In fact it does the opposite. They are hiding the information that those
sites exist. So they are helping those sites to flurrish in foraign
contries. Censoring is bad. Worse than those sites in the first place.

What can be used will be misused.

Censoring was ment good but it was missused to censor Dr. med Julius
Hellenthal. There was no reason and no right to censor him. Afterwards
nobody has been it and nobody tries to find out who was it or why.

Collateral damage.

With censoring there is always collateral damage. Telling everybody -
look at those guys - and explaining, is much better.

With a single root there will be a single point of failure.

With more that one root it is a lot more difficult to make censoring work.

Look at ICANN. A lot of people say it smells like corruption.

Look at The Public-Root it is not much better.

http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/

There will always be people trying to make bad use of things meant
good. We can never hinder them. We can only make their live
difficult by preventing a single point of failure.

Thank you for watching this.

But please watch too:

http://www.icannwatch.org/

Kind regards,
Peter and Karin Dambier

This is discussed in passing in RFC3675. In particular, the third paragraph
paragraph of section 3:

   Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Nigeria, and China are not likely to
   have the same liberal views as, say, the Netherlands or Denmark.
   Saudi Arabia and China, like some other nations, extensively filter
   their Internet connection and have created government agencies to
   protect their society from web sites that officials view as immoral.

If everybody is treated equally, then if one of those countries objects
to a site, then you can't visit it *either*, even if your country feels
the site is acceptable. So, for instance, you couldn't visit the link
http://aclu.org/pizza (a real URL about a real problem), because there's
at least one government that wishes that URL would go away. Two, if you
count the Chinese, who probably don't want their people knowing what rights
people in other countries have...

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Nigeria, and China are not likely to
have the same liberal views as, say, the Netherlands or Denmark.
Saudi Arabia and China, like some other nations, extensively filter
their Internet connection and have created government agencies to
protect their society from web sites that officials view as immoral.

and in the united states, we're madly hiring new fbi agents
to protect our society from web sites our officials view as
immoral.

randy