Root Problems

[bash]

For some reason this topic seems to be under the radar of most Americans but I keep reading about in the foreign press so let's talk about it here, namely, the running and protection of the thirteen root servers that control Internet traffic and define how it *runs*. As it stands now, IIRC, they are dispersed across the US in various large net-related corporations and universities and are administered at the direction of the US Commerce Department (AFAIK it does things like deciding on new TLDs, domain disputes, IP assignments, standards definition, etc.).

There's a large international fight for the root servers looming that threatens to *balkanize* the online world with parallel networks/protocols/addresses if the US doesn't hand over control of the servers. So, is it an American cyberworld and the others are just living in it or should America relinguish control of one of it's greatest inventions in order to appease the neighbors?

NOTE: Before you vote you should search about for some of the arguments. The foreign press is understandably anti-American on this but some still make valid points. On the one hand, with the US in control, if another nation were to come to depend on the net for communications, tax collection, voting, etc., the fear is we could control those things. On the other hand, the net has grown as quickly as it has due to the innovation of a nimble and visionary few (the fewer the moving parts, the greater the efficiency theory) and the hands-off policy of the US government. That would likely change significantly within a large (and arguably currently corrupt) bureacracy like the UN. Also it would enable tighter censorship controls by nations like China, Cuba, Iran, etc. It's rather complex so don't let a little nationalist (or anti-American) knee-jerking decide your vote.

[Cuda68-2]

Americans designed it, built it and allowed other nations in on it. Given the state of the world right now I really think we should keep control of our property for now, but in the long run it will need to end up under the control of the U.N.
Which by the way, the U.S. should follow the rules of the U.N. better though. We tend to do what we please instead of what we preach.

[Skyalmian]

Keep them where they are. Give them to the rest of the world and you'll have net blackouts and the beginning of fascist regulations on the last truly free entity on the planet. The other nations of the world will at their whim censor and ban everything they don't approve of, which is exactly why they want control.

If you want an example of a free entity going to **** due to control, look at radios when they first arrived. The FCC screwed that over hardcore.

[Will Robinson]

Keep it in our control, in the government.
Just because some other country decided to put their critical functions on a network that they don't control doesn't mean we then must give up control to protect them from their own stupid move!

[Top Wop]

Keep it the way it is. Or let the universities and no-profit organizations take care of it. But dont let it ever be under the control of an entity where suddently things may change and it will screw up internet computing. Giving up the internet to the UN may be a noble idea but dumb when you consider things like beuracracy and some obscure nation trying to have its way with it, ect.

On top of that we built it, we maintain it. Its only logical that we take care of it but through a non government and non profit organization.

[CDN_Merlin]

They are not all in the US. I know for a fact we have one in my city. they have I think 2-3 in Europe and the rest are in the US.

[Iceman]

Keep it in our control, in the government.
Just because some other country decided to put their critical functions on a network that they don't control doesn't mean we then must give up control to protect them from their own stupid move!

X2

[bash]

Merlin, apparently some are distributed servers now. Thanks for the correction. So they aren't entirely in the US (but mostly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_nameserver

[Vander]

"So, is it an American cyberworld and the others are just living in it"

Yes.

We provided a service for ourselves as well as other countries with the Internet. It is in our interest to make sure we retain control over it, to protect the service for ourselves.

The Internet is a great thing for the entire world, and it should be kept that way. But that doesn't mean we should give up control.

If countries don't trust us to keep it functioning properly for them or their critical apps, well, innovate, and produce something you do trust.

[dissent]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[roid]

Keep it in our control, in the government.
Just because some other country decided to put their critical functions on a network that they don't control doesn't mean we then must give up control to protect them from their own stupid move!

so the solution to that would be one of the things that Bash said in the OP: "*balkanize* the online world with parallel networks/protocols/addresses". if the internet's TRUST FACTOR can't be upgraded then nations building their own seperate parallel networks is the most obvious next option.

personally i think global distributed servers and global redundancy is the best option. if USA gets nuked off the planet i still wanna be able to talk to my fellow comrades over the internet

Keep them where they are. Give them to the rest of the world and you'll have net blackouts and the beginning of fascist regulations on the last truly free entity on the planet. The other nations of the world will at their whim censor and ban everything they don't approve of, which is exactly why they want control.

as a member of that oh so mysterious place, "the rest of the world (we have dragons)", i can say that you are being too generalising. international democracy is a good thing, therefore the UN seems to make sense. i wouldn't like all the root servers to be in control of the Christian Central USA - thank goodness the USA is a democracy - it all evens out - and as a result USA is a rather UNextreme place and i'm therfore not currently facing a firing squad for being a non-christian .
(no offence to christians, just making a hypothetical point about extremism)

[DCrazy]

Roid, in the case of the USA's complete DNS failure, you would still have perfectly good DNS access, since the root servers are locally cached by almost every country every day.

I say keep it in the USA. ICANN is a defunct mess, we don't need the same thing happening to DNS. I'm all for overhauling the entire DNS system (you ever mess with BIND? yeesh) and having an international committe oversee it, but until there's a structure in place, it will have to wait.

Internet2, IPv6, and a new DNS setup could be the best thing since sliced bread, especially since IPv6 has more available addresses than there are atoms in the universe, thus statistically guaranteeing that we will never run out of IPv6 addresses. That means that the need for non-authoritative lookups will be obviated, and thus DNS caches will be truly that: caches, not nodes in a large ad-hoc bastardization of yp.

Actually, that might mean that there would be NO need for a governing body.

[woodchip]

I'm waiting for Algore's comments before I make up my mind.

[Genghis]

Part of the problem is that the Internet isn't "done" yet. Meaning we're still working on it. It's not ready for wide release because of major security problems. The Department of Homeland Security, for example, is working on DNSSEC to replace DNS and SPRI (Secure Protocols for the Routing Infrastructure) to replace BGP. These are really, really tough problems to solve, but may be doable since we still have control over things. Once we lose control, forget it.

Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate has initiated an Internet Infrastructure Security Program. This program is engaged in research and development activities aimed at improving the security of the Domain Name System (DNS) and Internet routing protocols, two of the basic components that underlie communication on the Internet. Ongoing efforts in this program are focused on enabling the migration from existing protocols associated with DNS and routing infrastructure to more secure versions of these protocols.

[Dedman]

I'm waiting for Algore's comments before I make up my mind.

heh

[Mobius]

Of course, you poll is meaningless due to sample bias.

Of course you Americans think you're the best arbiters for the 'Net.

I question the sanity of that, as America seems to be losing its sanity.

[fliptw]

Of course, you poll is meaningless due to sample bias.

Of course you Americans think you're the best arbiters for the 'Net.

I question the sanity of that, as America seems to be losing its sanity.

Of course you'd say that, thats the only thing you are capable of saying.

I question the sanity of using a unproven method to fix something that really isn't broken.

If the US is losing its sanity, then the rest of the world is already there.

[Will Robinson]

Of course, you poll is meaningless due to sample bias.

Of course you Americans think you're the best arbiters for the 'Net.

I question the sanity of that, as America seems to be losing its sanity.

But if we're the ones who invented the thing then we are the best arbiters...we would never assume to tell you kiwi's how to date your sheep so just surf the net and leave the details to us ok?