3 ms·

Has a bureau of the US federal government just claimed ultimate authority over the internet's domain name system? If this is the case, then obviously we have a

by dstein 16y ago

Has a bureau of the US federal government just claimed ultimate authority over the internet's domain name system? If this is the case, then obviously we have a very serious problem on our hands. This threatens the way the internet works at the infrastructure level. Clearly the US needs to be stripped of their root DNS server privileges.

knowtheory 16y ago
This has been a criticism of ICANN since the very beginning of the internet. This has always been a serious problem, especially since ICANN was setup under the auspices of the Department of Commerce. And, i'd love to see your alternative proposal for who should run root DNS. Cause the US is nakedly political and partisan, but at least it's nakedly so. :\
- tankenmate 16y ago
  I think you'll find that the internet is a few decades older than ICANN. But in ICANN's defence most people who participate in ICANN (remember it is a self selecting body) aren't happy about all the seizures either. I'm sure the mailing lists are going "full tilt" (pun intended) as we type.
  - knowtheory 16y ago
    Yes, fair enough, perhaps we can agree on world wide web, or public use of the internet? ;) And of course, this puts ICANN at risk itself, as it's forced to explain or decry the seizures. The FBI is taking short term actions which will have long term effects. You gotta wonder if they've got lawyers who understand the implications of what they're doing.
eropple 16y ago
Stop hyperventilating, they did nothing of the sort. .com is based in the United States, and (whether or not you agree with the US's stance on online gambling, I don't) they seized an asset that they claim - probably rightly - is within their jurisdiction and is assisting these companies in committing acts that are illegal in the United States. If they seize a .co.uk, then there's something to be worried about, but as far as I am aware that has not happened.
- JoachimSchipper 16y ago
  The line is less clear than you suggest: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/141645-spanish-website-owner-pledges-to-fight-dhs-after-his-domain-name-is-seized http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/141645-s... (summary: Spanish site links to, but does not mirror, copyrighted material; Spanish courts finally say it's legal; DHS still seizes it). In the above case, (almost) no crimes were committed by anyone in an area the US has jurisdiction over; fulltiltpoker.com, at least, could be said to be actively recruiting Americans.
- dstein 16y ago
  they seized an asset that they claim - probably rightly - is within their jurisdiction That's circular logic. A .com domain name is only in the US's jurisdiction because they granted themselves this authority and have refused to give it up.

by dstein 16y ago

knowtheory 16y ago

This has been a criticism of ICANN since the very beginning of the internet. This has always been a serious problem, especially since ICANN was setup under the auspices of the Department of Commerce. And, i'd love to see your alternative proposal for who should run root DNS. Cause the US is nakedly political and partisan, but at least it's nakedly so. :\

tankenmate 16y ago
I think you'll find that the internet is a few decades older than ICANN. But in ICANN's defence most people who participate in ICANN (remember it is a self selecting body) aren't happy about all the seizures either. I'm sure the mailing lists are going "full tilt" (pun intended) as we type.
- knowtheory 16y ago
  Yes, fair enough, perhaps we can agree on world wide web, or public use of the internet? ;) And of course, this puts ICANN at risk itself, as it's forced to explain or decry the seizures. The FBI is taking short term actions which will have long term effects. You gotta wonder if they've got lawyers who understand the implications of what they're doing.

eropple 16y ago

Stop hyperventilating, they did nothing of the sort. .com is based in the United States, and (whether or not you agree with the US's stance on online gambling, I don't) they seized an asset that they claim - probably rightly - is within their jurisdiction and is assisting these companies in committing acts that are illegal in the United States. If they seize a .co.uk, then there's something to be worried about, but as far as I am aware that has not happened.

JoachimSchipper 16y ago
The line is less clear than you suggest: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/141645-spanish-website-owner-pledges-to-fight-dhs-after-his-domain-name-is-seized http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/141645-s... (summary: Spanish site links to, but does not mirror, copyrighted material; Spanish courts finally say it's legal; DHS still seizes it). In the above case, (almost) no crimes were committed by anyone in an area the US has jurisdiction over; fulltiltpoker.com, at least, could be said to be actively recruiting Americans.
dstein 16y ago
they seized an asset that they claim - probably rightly - is within their jurisdiction That's circular logic. A .com domain name is only in the US's jurisdiction because they granted themselves this authority and have refused to give it up.