Revolution resolution
Wired News front page: "U.S. Maintains Control of Net." The headline should have read "U.S. Maintains Control of DNS Root Zone", but that wouldn't be as catchy.
The Internet is not controlled by the U.S. or any other country. If all U.S. links are severed tomorrow, the Internet will still exist: there will still be interconnected networks, and packets will go through.
The root zone of the domain name system is controlled by the U.S. But, handing over control from one organization—the U.S.—to another—multinational agency—is not a solution. The real solution is decentralization: abolish Net-wide root zone altogether, and manage the namespace competitvely, recognizing country top-level domains by agreement. (The obvious question is, how do you introduce new global TLDs such as ".xxx" then? The answer is, you don't. Stay tuned for a discussion of why new generic top-level domains are not needed.)
Can you expect the U.N. to start a revolution?
posted by jrp at 6:03 PM
Subscribe.
3 Comments:
I think we need a revolution to start the U.N.!
You may be on the right trail... Let look at all the possibilities... Don't think the UN is the answer to anything...
1. The UN is a toothless vision of a lapdog, deafened from the whining of the founding five nations (including the one I call home) and their spiteful vetoes. The Five Founder set-up is bogus, and leads to situations where belligerent invaders (US) can attack another country, and then tie the hands of the would-be protectors.
The UN needs a presence on the planet, and I choose Jerusalem. Now nobody gets it and everyone has to play nice or be barred from accessing it.
Each country must send a percentage of its population for 2 years service as already-trained soldiers, and also an amount of money proportional to its GDP. In times of conflict, the numbers go up.
The UN now acts as a global government, but only for such matters as international crime and trade disputes, wars and encouragement of peaceful revolution. We vote in directors. The books are open for review.
One country, one vote. I don't care if you have a buttload of nukes and a monkey with his finger on the button.
2. TLDs should only be restricted to countries. PERIOD. Regional registrars handle 2LDs and sub-Regionals handle the 3LDs. 2LDs become nothing but directory sites for 3LDs, and that's it.
No company gets .com (because there is none), no company gets 'foo.us' ; Foo must take Foo.vancouver.bc.ca and Foo.murrayhill.nj.us 4LDs, if it can prove a presence in both locations; foo.ca and foo.us point to foo.bc.ca and foo.nj.us respectively, and those directories show links to all existing foo.*.nj.us and foo.*.bc.ca, respectively. Screw Levis, Coke, IBM, etc, who think they 'deserve' a 2LD. As many 4LDs for an organization as the organization can prove official presence (humans in a building). CF 'Mass Virtual Hosting' in Apache.
Domain names are chosen by the registrar, based on the name on the business license of the holding company or organization, with common-sense exceptions. This means SomeObscenelyLongDomainName.iq is just not gonna happen in any way, shape or form. Disputes handled by the registrar and usually based on oldest proof-of-presence a company can obtain and only in cases where organization names are both identical within the same city; the loser gets a '2' at the end of the 4LD portion, and the winner gets a '1' -- no one wins, because the original, disputed name is now, yes, a simple directory page containing a link to each one, run by the registrar.
Registrars are not for-profit companies; this highest-bidder/first-bidder stuff is crap (see .tv).
3. No 'porn' or 'mat' domain names. Who decides? I daresay evangelical christians will disagree with what I consider to be 'mature' material, especially where sex education and online liquor sales is concerned.
Post a Comment
<< Home