Planetarion Forums

Qdeathstar · 1 Oct 2005, 01:44

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9543452/

I think this is a bit silly :-/ Any ideas about how the United States controls the Interenent? And why it cares that it be the sole decision maker about the internet O.o? Is it because the United States first produce the intranet systems, ect?

Weeks · 1 Oct 2005, 01:58

The US controls the main DNS servers, not the internet. And yes, it's in the US at the moment as the US were the front-runners when it came to internet way back then. Europe, China, India etc could start their own name-servers and bypass the US ones. Hello fragmented internet!

Tactitus · 1 Oct 2005, 02:05

The question is who has ultimate authority over the Internet's master routing directories (IP addresses and domain names). The US turned over most of the authority to a private organization with international members (ICANN), but retains veto power through the Department of Commerce.

Both the EU and the UN want more authority, and at first glance, assigning IP addresses and domain names seems mundane enough. But whomever controls that also has the power to kick people off the internet.

So I think the real issue is: who gets to censor the internet.

Phil^ · 1 Oct 2005, 02:06

unfortunately for them, no-one can really censor the internet efficiently, without cutting off access in its entirety.
the internet treats censorship as 'damage' , and routes around it.

ps , controlling the root dns servers doesnt mean they can kick people off, it just means the name lookups wont be available for certain addresses, at best. They can still be accessed through the ip address

Yahwe · 1 Oct 2005, 02:15

Qdeathstar you made a promise to me and I made a promise to you.

I consider us bound.

the journalist who wrote that article is a very silly man. You should not have dignified his silliness with attention.

s|k · 1 Oct 2005, 02:49

I think China should control the internet, I bet they wouldn't censor it (much). HA.

Qdeathstar · 1 Oct 2005, 05:03

I think that its silly that we are wasting time trying to keep the internet under our control...Its an international Organization, it should be under international order... IMO.

NEWSBOT3 · 1 Oct 2005, 05:09

actually it doesnt even control the root DNS servers, all ICANN does is supply the master dns records (and updates to them etc) to the root servers.

If all 13 decided to take information from someone else, that'd put the internet out of american control rather quickly.

Yahwe · 1 Oct 2005, 05:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

I think that its silly that we are wasting time trying to keep the internet under our control...Its an international Organization, it should be under international order...

there is no such thing as 'international order'

sensationalism is bad

wu_trax · 1 Oct 2005, 11:12

i never was much into that whole networking stuff. can someone explain that in simple english? what authority does this private organisation have?
surely if i look up a .de or .co.uk-adress it doesnt have much to do with some dns-server in the us, does it?

NEWSBOT3 · 1 Oct 2005, 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i never was much into that whole networking stuff. can someone explain that in simple english? what authority does this private organisation have?
surely if i look up a .de or .co.uk-adress it doesnt have much to do with some dns-server in the us, does it?

there are 13 root dns servers.

each is responsible for various things.

the way it works is this

say i want newsbot3.deviantart.com

first it looks up the .com DNS (using ISPs DNS servers, which may pass the request on or may know the answer) for deviantart.com , then queries the deviantart.com DNS for newsbot3.deviantart.com , then passes that IP back to the browser/computer

the root DNS servers contain 'master lists' of DNS IPs, and are what all DNS servers should update too/from.

Qdeathstar · 1 Oct 2005, 13:54

So, is the reason it isnt free to register a domain (aside from a nominal charge of 10 cent or whatever) becuase all the domain names are owned by companies or something? I heard that somewhere... but im not sure about it... I mean, i doubt microsoft payed 7.99 for the domain name www.microsoft.com or that msnbc paid for its domain name? But i have to.. >.>

Phil^ · 1 Oct 2005, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

So, is the reason it isnt free to register a domain (aside from a nominal charge of 10 cent or whatever) becuase all the domain names are owned by companies or something? I heard that somewhere... but im not sure about it... I mean, i doubt microsoft payed 7.99 for the domain name www.microsoft.com or that msnbc paid for its domain name? But i have to.. >.>

dont try to do conspiracy theories.You're terrible at them.

Of course microsoft paid for their domain name, they have to keep paying for it each time it expires.
A quick lookup shows they're registered via Verisign, so its them that microsoft have to pay to renew it.

Marilyn Manson · 1 Oct 2005, 14:37

It's my internet, and I'll cry if I want to.

IncubusGod · 1 Oct 2005, 16:12

The reason the U.S. stil wants to have administrative control and the possibilty of future, more wider ranging controls, is clear.
Many in the government and political arena want to start policing it.
And they have started already.
War On Porn
More of the same

Which has already impacted several pay sites, such as the generally innocuous Suicide Girls , who've had to remove any and all photos (photo sets and members own personal pictures) of what the Bush White House and their ttorney General Alberto Gonzales feels is 'obscene'.
Such as light bondage, rope play, pictures with knives or any weapons, restraints, peeing, spanking, evidence of spanking/scratching, fake blood etc.
Because clearly such things, payed for and accessed by adults, are more dangerous than say...international terrorism.

So is it any surprise they don't want to relinquish control just yet? Or ever?

Qdeathstar · 1 Oct 2005, 16:31

No phil, I want to know why compainies charge so much, when registering with the ICAAN is like 70 cent or something... Its just what i heard, so if you could explain it, that'd be useful... >.> It has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. If businesses were SMART enough to buy all the domain names from ICCAN, then it would make sence that they could charge MORE for them, but if not, then who decidesthe price,ect.

wu_trax · 1 Oct 2005, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

there are 13 root dns servers.

each is responsible for various things.

the way it works is this

say i want newsbot3.deviantart.com

first it looks up the .com DNS (using ISPs DNS servers, which may pass the request on or may know the answer) for deviantart.com , then queries the deviantart.com DNS for newsbot3.deviantart.com , then passes that IP back to the browser/computer

the root DNS servers contain 'master lists' of DNS IPs, and are what all DNS servers should update too/from.

as i understood this* these servers only provide you with the adresses of the dns-servers that are responsible for the single toplevel domains, in your example that would be one of verisigns. verisign will then in turn give you or your isps dns the actual ip-adress for the website you requested.
i dont see how this is so important, besides the rather philosophical point whether or not such a service belongs into private hands or not. i dont even understand how there is any money in this. and i dont see how this can be used to censor the internet either. sure they could kill all .de domain, for example, but not a single website. that can only be done by whoever is responsible for the single TLDs. for .de-adresses that would be denic.

As already said, i dont know much on this subject, so the text above could be total bullshit. in that case, sorry.

dda · 1 Oct 2005, 19:05

Yahwe and I would make an international consortium for the policing of the internet. First step. No more Norwegians.