"Internet governance"

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Acts as a real-time interface between multiple independent systems.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

LOL

@#%$

If this were a mid-term essay question that answer would end up on the bulletin board.

:ww

cutting to the chase the cost of the paperwork would exceed the cost of the servers.

here's a hint...

nslookup p210.ezboard.com

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Most likely it would...but you would also have to include all the support staff...and without the funds, how would you keep it going? Would it be government funded? I think you can see where I'm heading with this. Some countries wouldn't develope enough revinue on advertising to keep it afloat...it would have to be government funded. That opens up a whole 'nuther can of worms.

Bottom line, though, is that the internet is worth a whole lot more than the value of its parts. It would almost be as if another country would "buy into" it...much as a person would buy into stocks. And would this be a government, or private "buy in"? Does a foreign government have the right to demand anything from a private company here in the US? The idea that any foreign country thinks they have the right to do that is becoming more rediculous the longer I think about it. Why doesn't europe go start it's own internet?!!!

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

Quote:
I think you can see where I'm heading with this.

yeah

absolutely nowhere, and "the internet" doesn't raise its funds by advertising. the US is maintaining a monopoly on the basic (look up "Domain Name Services" so you can stop sounding like such a bullshitter on this one) service root servers provide and its not about profits, although there is some to be had, its about security and I agree with the UN on that concern although I don't agree with their technical approach.

afaik no one has proposed being granted the access to mirror, trust and verify. that way if anything goes wrong "starting their own internet" would be a matter of days, not months.

Edited by: bitwhys at: 11/17/05 23:40

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

bitwhys - "yeah

absolutely nowhere"

No you don't, and no again.

My concern is that if it's a government that actually controls things it could turn into something foul...as opposed to having the freedom it enjoys today. This, of course, is dependent on the government in question.

bitwhys - "...its not about profits, although there is some to be had..."

LOL!

bitwhys - "its about security"

...which is what I was getting at. Security to remain a free net...which is debatable in some countries if they should acquire control of a/the net.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

you're so full both it and yourself its not even funny. you weren't "getting at" anything but "somehow link"ing to the existing internet and coughing up the cash.

at no point in this matter was the UN looking to aquire either physical or corporate assets.

and I'll state flat out that its typically Ugly American of you to laugh about something you so obviously don't understand and expect the rest of the world to have it your way.

ok genius. if you have this topic nailed finish this sentence...

the intrusion to the internet made possible by yielding root server governance is...???

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

It depends where the servers are located...and judging by Mike's comments, that's one of the issues. I'm talking about each country having it's own servers and possibly comming up with their own internal languages/protocols...doesn't necessarily have to happen that way, but it's really the only way each country would have control over their own internal net. The idea that an American company give up the rights to control its own assets to some foreign body is ludicrous. Go invent your own net!

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

Quote:
Go invent your own net!

its exactly that attitude that the UN is worried about.

matter of fact its one hell of a lot easier than you think. as a matter of fact the tier 2 DNS servers have most of what's needed to get started again sitting in cache.

TCP/IP and IPv6 are both public domain protocols.

you may think you've won, but this isn't going to go away. there's far to many commercial interests outside the US that simply won't sit still for it because what the US is doing IS a security risk, plain and simple. what happened this time around just confirms the US has no interests but their own. again.

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

and btw, it DOESN'T depend on where the servers are located. that's what routers are for.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

bitwhys - "and btw, it DOESN'T depend on where the servers are located. that's what routers are for."

It's pretty easy, if each country has a separate server (as I was suggesting) to simply unplug it...unless it's someplace where it can't be unplugged (like inside the country in question).

Each country could have it's own server(s) and protocols with interface software for each other country...or you could have a centrally located "hub" that all countries could interface with. I don't particularly like the "hub" idea, as with the mutual distrust between countries that (largely thanks to leftist media) is developing, the controllers of the "hub" would be subject to a lot of politics and could become easily corrupted. America has been this "hub" for a long time and the net has remained free. If countries start up their own nets (as you seem to think is cheap and easy) as I am suggesting, then America would no longer be the hub. But if it really is so "cheap and easy", why has it not been done? If it is indeed so "cheap and easy", it seems it would be easier than trying to wrest away control from America....?

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

most of the internet isn't hubbed any more, its switched. the infrastructure you're describing already exists. its not a matter of inventing or reinventing anything. what it all comes down to is trying to keep it so that that "fascist prick" in America and "getting started" in Zimbabwe both end up at the same forums.dt7isabigmouthedje...index.html when they want to exchange words. that takes international cooperation and the problem with that is, as usual, the US idea of cooperation is them doing what they want and everyone else trusting them.

and that's funny.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

So tell me this...why doesn't everybody just start up and do their own thing too? If they did, I can guarantee the US would be interested in making things work. Start their own nets with their own servers and switch off access to them from the US until they "cooperate". Methinks that would work. But no...they want a piece of the US pie without any of the effort involved...effort the US has already made.

The internet may be a global entity...but it's not globally owned or controlled (and the two go hand-in-hand). Canada could start up forums.bitwhyscannotcontrolhisanger.irk and run it on its own net, for example. Then, if the US wanted to advertise there (and I guarantee they would...at least the leftist newsrags would), then they'd have to "cooperate". Face it...it's a business...just like a leftist-media newsrag. Right now, there is nothing to gain, and potentially much to lose by allowing entities from foreign countries to have a hand in dictating how a US company runs its business. Some people don't seem to be able to get past the fact that the internet was started and exists here in the US. Just because it's gone global doesn't mean everybody else has the rights to ownership. It's like any other global business.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

Edited by: DreamTone7 at: 11/18/05 8:26

MIKE BURN · Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:45 am Post subject: Re: ROOT-SERVERS

For non experts and all those interested:

Essentially the DNS root name servers reliably publish the contents of one small file to the Internet. The file is called the root zone file. On 12-Dec-2004 there were 5335 lines of text in the file which had a size of 119KB.

This file is smaller than the ISOC home page http://www.isoc.org/. The root zone file also does not change very frequently; it changed only 7 times between 11-Nov-2004 and 12-Dec-2004 and only 90 times in the year preceeeding 12-Dec-2004. The individual changes are all localized and relatively small.

Compared to many other services on the Internet this service is rather unspectacular. The function and content of the root zone file are what make it special and cause it to be at the focus of increased attention. The root zone file is at the apex of a hierarchical distributed database called the Domain Name System (DNS). This database is used by almost all Internet applications to translate worldwide unique names like www.isoc.org into other identifiers; the web, e-mail and many other services make use of the DNS.

The root zone file lists the names and numeric IP addresses of the authoritative DNS servers for all top-level domains (TLDs) such as ORG, COM, NL and AU. On 12-Dec-2004 there were 258 TLDs and 773 different authoritative servers for those TLDs listed. Other name servers forward queries for which they do not have any information about authoritative servers to a root name servers. The root name server answers with a referral to the authoritative servers for the appropriate TLD or with an indication that no such TLD exists.

Root servers are operated by twelve organisations often referred to as the "root server operators". They are

A - VeriSign Global Registry Services

B - Information Sciences Institute

C - Cogent Communications

D - University of Maryland

E - NASA Ames Research Center

F - Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

G - U.S. DOD Network Information Center

H - U.S. Army Research Lab

I - Autonomica/NORDUnet

J - VeriSign Global Registry Services

K - RIPE NCC

L - ICANN

M - WIDE Project

The letters A-M represent the 13 numeric IPv4 addresses at which the service is provided. Each operator is repsonsible for providing reliable DNS service to the Internet at large from their address. Some operators still provide the service from one location with one or more physical machines. Other operators provide the service from multiple locations using a method called "anycast" which is explained in the FAQ referenced below. The actual root name servers machines are located at more than 80 locations in 34 countries, most of them outside the United States of America (December 2004).

The root name server operators do not determine the content of the root zone file. The file is edited by the IANA according to a process described on the IANA web site. The root name server operators publish the file as received from the IANA. See: http://www.iana.org/root-management.htm

No Internet traffic passes through the root name servers at all. They have nothing to do with routing, note the difference in spelling. Name servers just answer queries from other parts of the DNS.

The root name servers do not store all the information in the DNS. Storing all the information in one place would be totally infeasible today. This is exactly why the DNS was developed as a distributed database. So if you register thatnewdomain.org the root zone file will not change and the root name servers will not give different answers. The ORG zone file will be changed.

The root name servers are not queried every time you browse the web or send mail. Information is cached in the DNS. Your computer will query a caching DNS server to resolve domain names. A well behaved DNS server needs to query the root name servers only once every 48 hours for each particular TLD.

In the meantime it can resolve names for that TLD without involvement of the root name servers. Because of this caching almost all DNS queries are answered without involvement of the root name servers.

While the root zone file represents the apex of a hierarchical naming system, the root name servers that publish this zone file are organised in a distributed and diverse fashion. No single entity has authority or control over the operation of these servers. This diversity and the distributed authority has been a key element of the reliability of the root name service. Therefore this diversity should be maintained in the face of increasing pressure for more hierarchical "Internet Governance".

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

Quote:
...they want a piece of the US pie without any of the effort involved

well

that's so ignorant and fascist it kind of takes some of the fun out of it. kind of.

:bleh

like I already said, its simply a matter of cooperation and since it involves the Americans everybody knows that's trouble.

and you don't know be from angry so cry me a river.

Edited by: bitwhys at: 11/18/05 12:13

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

So why is it exactly that other countries can't start their own net? What these existing servers won't recognize, the new servers will...and will respond to it. Get a company going to provide access to it, and get a bunch of folks to sign up. They'd almost have something like an intranet within the country that could be tied into the internet via a special "hub" server just for that purpose. Access could then be limited by each country through that server. Then as subscriber build up in numbers, a deal of some kind could be cut. It wouldn't cut out access to the existing internet, but would be in competition with it. What's the big hangup?