South Africa Wants Control of .za 345
fdiaz5583 writes "Recently, the South African government wants to seize control of the .za domain. However, ICANN owns the domains and under the ICANN rules, they will not relinquish control. Mike Lawrie who is global administrator of domain names states: 'If it becomes illegal for me to do the job under South African law and if I am not authorized by ICANN to hand over the administration, the .za domain will have to shut down until the issue is cleared up'." We mentioned this tussle earlier. The .za administrator doesn't like the way the government is going about this; the government, of course, has men with guns, so it's not like he's going to win in the end, it's only a question of how ugly it will get.
Similar to .au recently? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Similar to .au recently? (Score:1)
I don't think ICANN is a particularly righteous organisation in itself, but a federal government making a sudden grab at a TLD seems off-putting to me in some way.
The phrase "management of the internet could not be left to individuals" is also irksome. Undertones, anyone?
Re:Similar to .au recently? (Score:5, Interesting)
Specifically they want to replace the non-profit organisation Namespace [namespace.org.za] (whom Mike Lawrie consults to) with a huge unwieldy bureaucracy that will cost the taxpayers millions and is overseen by the Communications Minister. In other words, a simple administrative function that has been performed superbly by a single highly-competent individual over the last decade will now be replaced by an eighteen person board of directors whose salary bill alone is millions per year. Not only that but the Government's spin on the whole debacle is that they are imposing some form of democracy on the current evil monopoly that Mike Lawrie has subjected us all to.
This is complete bullshit. Mike Lawrie and Namespace have repeatedly tried to get the Government involved in ccTLD administration with no success for many years now. The Department of Communications, led by two politicians whose only qualities seem to be an equal balance of power hungriness, greed and incompetence (Ivy and Andile - yes, this means you two) say that Government control over
A few facts are in order.
And yes, as a South African journalist who's been following this saga for quite some time, I don't mind saying that I'm really pissed off.
Re:Similar to postal codes, world wide? (Score:2)
So you figure that the SA government should be able to regulate how US map publishers spell SA place names? A German publisher of industrial indexes should have to get permission from the SA government to list the phone numbers of SA businesses?
Hint: the root servers are not in South Africa.
Re:Similar to postal codes, world wide? (Score:2)
A goverment disided how a business inside its boarders will do a job. That is it.
It is not ICCAN'TS to deside what they like. They are a business too. The ZA authority has been moved to a goverment oversite, from a person on his own. It is done.
If ICCAN'TS can't understand that - then either the internet is dead or ICAN'T is.
jackb
Re:Similar to postal codes, world wide? (Score:2, Insightful)
Zambia? (Score:1)
Last I checked, there's no Z in South Africa, and don't they speak english down there?
~q of course http://www.contre.org [contre.org]
Re:Zambia? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Zambia? (Score:1)
Zuid Afrika (Score:5, Informative)
It is from the Dutch [zuidafrika.nl], Zuid Afrika
SA is Saudi Arabia
As a concerned citizen... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm biased.
It seems lately I've developed a knee-jerk reaction to anything Microsoftian and/or coming from this two-bit^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H democratically elected leadership. When I see stupidity, I really dislike it. Unfortunately, it looks like it's on the rise.
To the world out there, I can only say a couple of things:
To the couple of South Africans who are reading this I just want to say:
That's it. Sit back and watch the show people, I can guarantee you will be entertained!
Re:As a concerned citizen... (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like Canada!
Re:As a concerned citizen... (Score:2)
I'm Canadian and live in Canada, and if you had any awareness of recent political history, you know know that the italicized comment above is frightenly accurate in describing the recent run of Liberal goverments. They screw us, get voted in again while promising not to screw us again, screw us again, ad nauseum.
To a Canadian, the above should be funny. Maybe funny like a trainwreck, but funny none-the-less, Unless, of course, the Canadian reading it happens to be a liberal supporter regardless of the bullshit politics they've inflicted on this country... if that is the case, thats for your contribution to beating Canada down, assclown =)
Re:As a concerned citizen... (Score:3, Interesting)
Even acknowledging all this problems, South Africa's government is not bad by world standards. Firstly, they hava managed to retain a very high level of freedom for all South Africans, mor than can be said of That Major Democracy Across The Atlantic. Secondly, they have worked very hard to provide for the primary health care and education needs of a largely underprivledged population.Thirdy, they have implemented basically sound economic policies.
There are a lot of cluess idiots in the South African government, but equally there are many clueless idiots in any government. The important point is that the government is working to make sure that all the tenents of the Bill of Rights are fulfilled for all South Africans.
Sure, this is a stupid step to take, but it does not make SA a banana republic, any more than the DMCA makes the USA a banana republic.
Re:As a concerned citizen... (Score:2)
The arbitrary moving and closing of polls would in and of itself be enough to deny the election's validity. The denial of access to polls that were open would, of itself, be enough to deny the election's validity. The brohaha about shads was shear misdirection. That *was* silly. And I suspect that it was intentionally so. (Nobody wanted to point to the similar things that were happening in a few other states where the vote didn't happen to be quite as close.)
Also: most of the information that we have about the Sept. 11 event was processed through the government. I.e., the evidence for the defence was processed by the prosecution before the defence lawyers were allowed to see it. This doesn't lead to any great faith in the results. There's no *proof* that the lied, and hid relevant facts. But they had the motive, method, and opportunity.
Re:As a concerned citizen... (Score:2)
I conceed that you have a point if one supposes a large conspiracy. But I would maintain that what happens instead is that a large number of people are each independantly acting so as to show themselves in the best light by neglecting to forward information that would make them look bad. And, simultaneously, emphasizing any information that makes them look good. The information wouldn't need to pass through too many layers of forwarding to be almost unrecognizable.
Re:As a concerned citizen... (Score:2)
The main difference seems to be that the annointed enemy lives outside of the country. That's certainly an improvement for those who live here, but I'm not sure that the annointed enemies have anything to cheer about. And "terrorism" is so defined that it can be applied just about wherever the decision makers choose. (I.e., it doesn't seem to have any real definition. Merely a bunch of emotional trigger words.)
Re:As a concerned citizen... (Score:2)
As opposed to the last party that promised equality to everyone on a "separate but equal" basis fifty years a go and when they were forced out of power still had not provided basic needs like "Lights" "clean water" and "arable land"
HIV - AIDS (Score:3, Insightful)
There are those who say that because AIDS is so dangerous it is irresponsible for people to raise doubts around it, but I would argue that it is essential for people to question such things precisely because it is so dangerous.
A good source of information on the opinion that HIV does not necessarily cause AIDS can be found here [aliveandwell.org].
Re:HIV - AIDS (Score:2)
Re:As a concerned citizen... (Score:2)
If you don't have that much existing infrastructure then cellular networks are considerably cheaper than landline networks to install. Installing cable ie expensive, so expensive that technologies such as ISDN and ADSL were developed to make better use of existing cable infrastructure.
What do you expect of a country where everyone votes for the same party, regardless whether they messed up, promise to mess up or promise not to mess up again then mess up?
Is other words South Africa lacks political diversity. The US isn't that much better, About the only places you get lots of political diversity is Europe, especially the smaller countries.
Re:As a concerned citizen... (Score:2)
OK, but what do you propose doing instead ?
I guess if one stopped "perpetrating" poor people, they would die out or at least be less likely to reproduce. This would raise living standards, and would lessen the poverty gap. In fact, why not irradicate poverty entirely by just shooting everybody beneath the poverty line.
Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm not sure what you really mean by "perpetrate more poor individuals".
Yeah and...??? (Score:3, Insightful)
First of, this is a democratically elected government with a formal bill making process, all of which has been followed. It's not ICANN or the readers of
This sort of political manuvering happens everyday in large corporations. Threatening to cause a blackout if the bill is passed only proves their point. I also have to say, I find it insane currently this has been done by one unpaid party with no formal/legal binding to the country. What if this Mike Lawerence guy was smacked by a bus? Who's his backup? Who knows what he knows?
And so they started their own redelgation process, but the DoC Sun Tzu'd them and came at them with the sun behind their back. Who cares, give it to the Gov't. It's theirs anyhow. They'll figure it out. If they spend 12million (whatever currency) on it, you have something to campaign with when you go for the Chairmens job. That's the way it works.
Stop acting like the dorky network administer who's pissed off his little department LAN has been absorbed by Corp IT, and he's no longer _GOD_.
Re:Yeah and...??? (Score:2)
Symptomatic of DNS problems in general (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not a prospect anyone is looking forward to, but I think we should accept the fact that our system of TLDs and DNS hierarchy is going to fall apart. Our current system demands too high a level of political and economic consistency; eventually some large, politically powerful groups will break away and form their own system; or (perhaps more in line with current trends) the system will fall under the power of large corporations and people will break away and form their own roots.
So what needs to happen is the development of a system whereby multiple DNS roots can be easily used and DNS conflicts are resolved by the end-user rather than a commitee. It's unfortunate, but the Internet spans too many political and cultural boundaries for a "cathedral" model to be effective.
Re:Symptomatic of DNS problems in general (Score:2)
Re:Symptomatic of DNS problems in general (Score:2)
This sounds similar to something that equally evil corporate behemoth Clear Channel attempted / is attempting with the
Alternativly (Score:4, Insightful)
A country passes legislation that it's elected goverment should have control of its internet policy, and not a quasi-goverment 'board' of unelected officials.
Is it right for ICANN to mandate things upon an elected goverment? Is it right for an elected goverment to mandate things on ICANN?
These are issues that need to be adressed, this is just an issue of a goverment wanting to 'control the internet'. South africa do have a bad history of being controled by foreign commities after all.
I also find it mildly offensive that the Slashdot edditors automaticaly assosiate South Africa with Gun Toating Totalitarianism.
Re:Alternativly (Score:2)
Re:Alternativly (Score:3, Interesting)
There is one person (a south african, not foreign) running the domain right now, not any sort of committee. He has stated that he does not want to continue running it, sice he's been doing it for years without getting paid for it. He is running it basically because he was around when the opportunity to have a
I also did not take the comment about guns as a statement about south africa. Every government in the world has guns, and very few seem overly afraid to use them. In fact, there's not a country in the world that the statement "the government, of course, has men with guns" would not apply to. I think this statement certainly wouldn't be out of context if used on, e.g. America.
Re:Alternativly (Score:2)
Re:not likely (Score:2)
Despite that, the real reason America has so much say and will continue to have so much say, is that everyone wants to surf American web-sites. There is no one out there to set up a viable competing internet.
If South Africa had invented the internet, instead of our recent ex-Vice-President, America's response would have been to set up our own competing version called MicroNetSoft and muscle South Africa out of their niche. Americans wouldn't have been able to surf South African websites, but not many people would have cared. America would have suceeded too.
South Africa does not have the same option.
(I know what Gore's actual comment was, please don't quote it back to me.)
Excellent... (Score:4, Funny)
Common Sense... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats the same as the US government not having regulatory control over their own airwaves/airspace. Crazy.
---
The real beef is that governments are historically less speedy in providing the services required, but this should not prevent any government from having regulatory authority over the naming and addressing of the internet within its own borders.
---
-Tim
A South African.
---
I dont like the idea of potentially putting a company out of business because of governemental involvement, but some of the proposed regulatory changes will have to happen at some point in the future, in many places in the world.
Q?: Why should ICANN have a whip over the internet naming of an entire country? ICANN should recognise the regulations of govermental regulation of its namespace.
Re:Common Sense... (Score:2)
That doesn't follow at all! What happens when I register southafricasucks.co.za, or mbekigoatse.cx.co.za, or what have you.
government from having regulatory authority over the naming and addressing of the internet within its own borders.
Hey, that's fine with me. South Africa can use one namespace, and the internet can use another. That way, everyone's happy!
Re:Common Sense... (Score:2)
There is a lot of misinformation about this bill, primarily coming from the people who don't like it, who we usually respect as honest, upstanding, technicall competant, and above talking bullshit.
The SA government has passed a bill to nationalise the .za namespace, NOT to take control of subdomains. The bill explicitly forces the government to license registrars to administer subdomains. It does not call for or force the actual technical maintenance of the .za root nameserver to be done by the government - it can be outsourced.
The bill only puts overall policy control in the hands of the government. This means that the creation of new second-level domains is not restricted by a single person, but decided by a committee. It also means that the government is forced to (by the bill) create a dispute resolution policy, which must be consistent with other SA laws -- something which other countries haven't got right yet.
The bill is online [namespace.org.za], so please know what you are talking about before shooting your mouth off.
NO, not common sense, but History, laws and owners (Score:2, Interesting)
1. The US army (= the governement) created Internet
2. They authorized universities to connect
3. They authorized people in the world to connect
4. They authorized commerce
5. They delegated THEIR rights to ICANN
That's it. Internet belongs to the US governement that *GAVE* its control to ICANN.
Countries have nothing to say like they have nothing to say about Ford Motors or about International Red Cross.
Now, is that good ? That's ANOTHER question...
Re:NO, not common sense, but History, laws and own (Score:2)
The US government does not own even a controlling interest in the infrastructure. The US government does not own the root nameservers.
At one point the US millitary owned the internet, as soon as they allowed others to connect at will they gave it up. The US does not own the networks of those they allowed to connect, nor does it own the networks who connect to the networks they allowed to connect, at nauseum.
The internet is owned by humanity. The namespace for a country should belong to that country for without that country why have the namespace?
-- iCEBaLM
Re:NO, not common sense, but History, laws and own (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, control of the 'internet' has zero to do with control of namespaces. Let's say, for example, that all of a sudden, my domain, 'neverending.org' became suddenly popular, and everyone wanted a third-level domain under it. So, to help the situation, I divy up the namespace into country-codes, so there is us.neverending.org, ca.neverending.org, za.neverending.org, and so on. Now why in the world should I be forced to let the South African government control za.neverending.org?
ICANN owns/runs very top level namespace. It created it. Why should it be told what to do by a foreign government? Artificial namespaces, such as the domain namespaces, aren't owned by humanity, they are owned by whoever created them.
Re:NO, not common sense, but History, laws and own (Score:2)
The ccTLDs were an agreement between representatives of various countries and ICANN, in order to split the root namespace according to country, and allow each country a namespace to administer independant of ICANN.
If the .za ccTLD was administered by someone whose dispute resolution policy was "if it has money, it wins", you would be singing a very different tune.
The point is that no one person or organisation has the right or authority to assume control of a ccTLD, where a representative authority exists and is capable of doing the same thing. That authority is the government.
Re:NO, not common sense, but History, laws and own (Score:2)
If this is true, then it does grant some validity to the notion that the country pointed to should be in control of said namespace, but it doesn't convince me fully yet.
No I wouldn't, since I know full well that if I didn't like how ICANN was handling its root nameservers, then I could switch to a different root.
Re:Common Sense... (Score:2)
You, along with many others, obviously don't seem to grasp how the domain system works. The .za is simply a namespace partition of the entire namespace created by ICANN, nothing more. The South African government should have absolutely no control over what ICANN does.
Re:Common Sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it does, as I'll point out below
Your analogy is entirely flawed. Radio frequencies are a common, natural resource, shared by all. The frequencies were not created by anyone, and therefore we would all have to share.
On the other hand, the ICANN namespace is something it created out of thin air. A better analogy would be if Amazon.com came up with a section on its website for books authored by South Africans. Should the South African government be given control of that portion of the website? I think not.
Re:Common Sense... (Score:2)
Re:Common Sense... (Score:2)
Umm, wrong. The TLD's are currently NOT under individual governmental control, and they obviously aren't useless. The current state of affairs proves your argument to be without merit.
Re:Common Sense... (Score:2)
My amazon analogy wasn't as clear as the analogy I give in my other comment [slashdot.org].
Jon Postel said it best (Score:2)
Provision of names in .za isn't a service such as education or healthcare that a country provides to its citizens; it's merely one part of the vast decentralised database called the DNS. There's nothing "obvious" in saying that any one part of the DNS should be controlled by anyone in particular, other than that it should be controlled by someone competent to do the job (and, by all accounts, the ability to run nameservers competently is not universally believed to be a property of the South African government).
It's difficult to better the way Jon Postel put it in the relevant standards document, RFC 1591 [isi.edu] ("Domain Name System Structure and Delegation"), sec 3.2: "These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the community. The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community. Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community." (emphasis mine).
Re:Jon Postel said it best (Score:2)
Of course, this statement is entirely at odds with the way DNS is run in practice, anywhere in the world. Domain names are property, and suitable regulation is required to prevent abuse of that property.
The SA government is taking a bold step in political and legal regulation, but not technical regulation. The gov. is unlikely to run the nameservers itself, but will contract a suitable institution. Its primary concern is the regulation of the .za hierarchy to ensure licensed registrars (not monopolies over various 2LDs) and that there is a uniform dispute resolution policy, which is consistent with SA law.
Re:Jon Postel said it best (Score:2)
Of course, this statement is entirely at odds with the way DNS is run in practice, anywhere in the world. Domain names are property,
Yes, perhaps unfortunately, although they're still the stated ideals of IANA (who have acted on them [icann.org] in the not-too-distant past).
and suitable regulation is required to prevent abuse of that property.Indeed. I don't think you're likely to find anyone who disagrees with you on that.
The SA government is taking a bold step in political and legal regulation, but not technical regulation. The gov. is unlikely to run the nameservers itself, but will contract a suitable institution.People elsewhere in this thread have said (though I have no way of knowing whether truly or not) that the SA government have a poor track record in contracting suitable institutions to perform other functions related to communications infrastructure, and so were unlikely to perform any better with the DNS. Many of the concerned comments to this story have been about this question, separately from questions over how and why the SA government have any right to take this step.
Re:Common Sense... (Score:2)
Everyone is free to start an alternative DNS root system. If South Africa wants, they can start their own DNS system (that noone except some South Africans would use) and have full control over
Suppose I name a file on my computer file.za, does that mean it should be under control of South Africa?!?
ICANN owns the DNS system that most people/companies have agreed to use. Most have agreed to do so because they do a reasonably good job on setting fair rules and distributing a fair amount of control to all parties involvd. But in the end ICANN has control, and rightly so. Imagine each state setting up its own DNS system?
Or even worse, imagine the UN setting up a DNS system. With what right? Are all states of the world obliged to be a UN member? Would some UN beaurocratic organization do a better job?
Re:Common Sense... (Score:2)
ICANN runs the DNS system, it doesn't own it. Furthermore it has come to an agreement with country representatives that there will be TLDs corresponding to ISO-standard country codes, which shall serve as a root namespace for that country, so that the generic TLDs (.com, .org, etc) are mostly used for the US and multinationals.
This is not about SA wanting control over some arbitrary area of the DNS namespace. It is about an area of the namespace specifically reserved by ICANN for SA, which is currently being run by a single person with no sanction from the government or any legal institution, and who has at many time been at odds with the industry.
It is also about an industry which has been granted a monopoly on 2LDs, and has on several occasions abused that monopoly.
ccTLDs are, and must be considered as, a national resource. This gives the government every right to dictate regulatory policy to the extent that they can within the framework afforded by ICANN, both technically and politically.
The issue here is that the one person currently maintaining the .za namespace does not want to hand over the namespace to the body which will be appointed by the govt., because he has issues with the new law. And he is using ICANN's rules regarding transfer of ownership to block that handover, and threaten destabalisation of the SA internet in order to bolster public support.
Re:Common Sense... (Score:2)
Based on what evidence? I hear of very few complaints (well none to be honest) about the UK TLD controller Nominet, and they are a non-profit organisation with no government affiliation. A domain name costs $3.65/year and service is excellent.
Other posters have already covered much of what I would say about the rest of your post. Your concepts of borders and sovereignty are misguided but understandable. It's a difficult area to understand if you don't know its history.
Phillip.
Re:Common Sense... (Score:2)
Well said. For all those who misunderstand the intent of this bill (the govt. is NOT hi-jacking all domain names in SA - it is creating a regulatory framework for the .za domain, which inter alia requires the licensing of registrars for second level domains, independant of government), you can find the bill online here [namespace.org.za] (section 60).
The government doesn't quite get it (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the admin should leave the country, a government this irrational is likely to blame him when they take over and find either that they've been unplugged from the root or that their attempts to do well meaning but wrong things will have the same effect.
Re:The government doesn't quite get it (Score:2)
Re:The government doesn't quite get it (Score:2)
Governments always lie about their reasons for doing things. They don't have any choice in the matter. This is because a government is not a unitary entity. Each separate individual has a reason for his acts. The government doesn't. A government has the intelligence of an earthworm. Maybe. It reacts to stimuli. Some people are in the position to apply more effective stimuli: Presidents, Premiers, Cabinet Ministers, etc. Others are less effective, clerks, etc. But each component part has their own agenda, and their own reaction. When a Senator say what HE intends to do, he may be telling the truth. When he, as a spokesman for the Government, says what the government intends to do, he is automatically lying, whether he realizes it or not (he's usually more effective if he doesn't realize this).
But just how much attention to you expect this Senator to devote to ensuring that the government acts in the way that he has said it intends to act? Usually the answer is "practically none". He hasn't said what he intends to do. He hasn't said that he will ensure that the government acts this way. He's said that the government intends to act this way. And he has no way of knowing HOW the government intends to act, since it has no unitary intention.
Re:The government doesn't quite get it (Score:2)
Good morning. You are a fuckwit.
The bill is not about grabbing the ccTLD. That makes up sections 60-65 of 80. The bill makes is encumbant upon the government to provide means to facilitate Internet access to everyone (the government views the Internet as a basic communications medium ... which is a heck of a lot more progressive than most countries), and sets up regulatory frameworks for e-commerce, including the recognition of digital signatures as being legally binding.
Re:The government doesn't quite get it (Score:2)
Start by understanding the process. This bill has been in the making since 1998. Nine technical committees were set up to research various aspects of the bill, and their membership was, indeed, technical, and not political. The bill has gone through three periods of public comment, and eventually made it to parliament and been passed.
The comment about "internet availability" are, as is usual for the media, somewhat out of context, and refer to practices by registrars which have been considered discriminatory. Some registrars have no published dispute resolution policy, and will not act except on a court order. Others, like the .org registrar, make no attempt to consider status - either you are a section 21 company (non-profit) or you pay a full commercial fee (and can be anyone, including companies). These practices are inconsistent with the law AND the intent of the domain system.
It's up to worldwide DNS users (Score:4, Insightful)
So if the South African government and ICANN don't agree, then each DNS administrator (at least for the main root nodes that others consider authoritative) around the world, or for that matter each non-root DNS server operator who knows how, can select whichever ".za" TLD server they prefer. The government can run one, and the incumbent can run one. Frankly, it is more important what John Sidgemore thinks, because he runs the largest backbone ISP. ICANN exists because Bernie Ebbers before, and John now, let it. My guess is that ICANN would not advise the server operators to obey a government over itself. Operators within South Africa might have to, but the rest of the world is not subject to that jurisdiction.
Likewise, if users don't like ICANN, they can move to a different DNS for
Re:It's up to worldwide DNS users (Score:2)
This is a pretty bad idea. The result of this is that nobody really knows whether a particular
Frankly, it is more important what John Sidgemore thinks, because he runs the largest backbone ISP.
Just because Worldcom provides connectivity to a large number of ISPs doesn't mean a large number of users query Worldcom's DNS servers. End users normally query their own ISP, which queries ICANN's root servers directly - not Worldcom. I've worked for several different ISPs and have not yet seen one that used its backbone provider's DNS servers.
Re:It's up to worldwide DNS users (Score:2)
Consider the issues you brought up to be a problem with any non-single-authority naming system. If you don't like the flexibility of choosing root servers DNS system offers you, tough luck; we're so sorry you have freedom, and we'll be glad to take it away from you. But most of the rest of us like having a choice.
This makes little sense (Score:5, Interesting)
.za should not belong to South Africa because it refers to them,
I think if myself and the other residents on my street joined together and tried to seize control of our postal code (after all, it is how people send stuff to our street) we would be laughed at because it makes no sense.
Now I realise that puchasing of domain names has lead to a way of thinking that domain names belong to their owners, and therefor who better to own a country wide domain name than a body in that country, but I feel that is a misconception.
A more correct term for purchasing domain names is registering domain names (which can involve the transfer of money) which actualy implies the assignment of rights rather than the assignment of ownership. You get the exclusive right to have that name point at you, but it is never owned because it is just a name, and it belongs to the people using it to refer to you as much as anyone else.
Now what would help people (myself included) understand the situation better is an explaination of what you can actually do once you have 'seized control of
Please would someone care to explain the implications of such a situation. If it has all sorts of potential implications on how the internet or other global systems could pan out then it would be of great interest if these were explored in detail, otherwise who has control of a domain name seems rather irrelevant news.
Why not just issue the gov a new top level domain? (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, if this dispute can be used to help destroy ICANN, that should be encouraged.
___
Re:Why not just issue the gov a new top level doma (Score:2)
On the same page, you can also see some other applications for redelegation such as
Staying On topic (Score:2, Insightful)
Now for the topic at hand. I would like to believe that if a country has a direct relation to a domain name that they would be in control of it. Similar to
The internet is supposed to be a free community and strong arm tactics from anyside should not be tolerated.
What do other people think?
Re:Staying On topic (Score:2)
Re:Staying On topic (Score:2)
I thought everybody was reasonably aware these days that the only human skin pigment was the "black" one.
"White" people are simply deficient in pigment and are thus the color of human *flesh* rather than human "skin" color, much as blanched asparagus is the color of cellulose rather than green.
( Making the whole "flesh colored" crayon thingy kind of ironic really, it really was flesh colored, just not *skin* colored).
KFG
def·i·ni·tion (Score:2)
Pronunciation: 'ni-g&r
Function: noun
1a: one that nigs b: a tool or machine for nigging.
Common. Lets all grow up now. After all, when was the last time you saw somebody nig?
... even if not correct (Score:2)
Phillip.
PS Not smart playing into the racists hands. The only time I saw the 'n' word was in *your* post because you put it in a +2 post (presumably the post you are replying got modded down out of view, as you should have expected it would have been)
PPS South Africa is not "predominatly encompassed by people of the white pigment not black", as "Black South Africans make up about 70 percent of the country's population of over 44 million people" (ref [bellanet.org]).
Who gave ICANN the say so over this? (Score:2)
Who gave ICANN the say so over this? The South African government wanting control over the .za domain seems to me to be less of an issue than ICANN wanting control over the . zone.
Re:Who gave ICANN the say so over this? (Score:2)
Now as with most everything on the internet, you don't have to obey the rules. You are welcome to setup your own namespace with your own root servers and the whole 9 yards. However people are then perfectly free to ignore you. There are a few orginisations that have started their own DNS structure to attempt to add new TLDs, however they are by and large failing because DNS administraators are not choosing to add their servers to the list of roots they check.
Re:Who gave ICANN the say so over this? (Score:2)
See, government control! That is a precedent that the government of South Africa can use. The .ZA namespace does NOT belong to the USA. Therefore it cannot be given by the USA to ICANN. Therefore it does not belong to ICANN, either. It rightly belongs to South Africa. The government of South Africa then has the say on how it is set up, delegated, or whatever.
You don't seem to understand (Score:2)
The DNS system, and most of the Internet is all about cooperation and following established rules. Noone is forcing yuo, but if you don't you just won't work with anyone else. It's like IP addresses, those are handed out by ARIN, RIPE and the other organisations like them. Well you are free to ignore them if you want. You can program your network equipment to use whatever IP addresses you like, even ones you don't own. However, your upstream provider will refuse to route your traffic if you do. You can run your own little network however you please with whatever addressess you like, but if you want to play on the Internet, you have to use the ones given to you or your traffic won't go anywhere.
It's the same thing with DNS. I run a DNS server and I can do anything I want with it. I can add domain names to it that someone else owns, nothing is stopping me. However, only people that use that DNS server will see my mapping. Everyone else will see the correct mapping. I can also tell it what root servers I want it to search. I am free to add the root servers from an alternate TLD orginisation (there are a couple out there) or even remove the root-servers.net servers entirely. If I wanted, I could even setup a root with my own TLDs. However, this all just affects people that trust and use my DNS. If I were to create a root and add the
So the situation is the same with South Africa. Sure, they "take control" of the
Again, if you don't like the roots, you can move to or create an alternate root authority. Noone is stopping you, however most of us only take the ICANN controled roots as authorative, so we will never see your DNS updates. That's how freedom on the internet works. You are free to ignore the established rules and protocols, and noone will arrest you or anything. However the rest of us are then free to ignore you and your method of doing things.
I understand just fine (Score:2)
And do you think ICANN [icann.org] would be so stupid to do that? I hope they do so we can finally get rid of ICANN [icann.org] once and for all.
All country code TLDs should be under the control of the specific country identified. That seems to be the case with many, and maybe most. I think that the government of South Africa [www.gov.za] has the right to designate who (be it a government department, a corporation, or even an individual) runs the zone, and even specify the policies under which it operates. The fact that some governments already do have that control just makes the case all that much stronger.
What makes you say that any one name space is the correct one? How do you define correct? Is it correct if it's what you think is right? Is it correct just because ICANN [icann.org] runs it?
Been there, done that [ipal.net].
My real point is, however, that if it comes down to two different sources of .za TLD zone data, people will demand to use the officially government sanctioned source, as opposed to the one that the current operator runs. If ICANN [icann.org] fails to use the government one, I predict it will be the final stake through the heart of an organization that should have been terminated years ago.
And yes, I will put the South African government [www.gov.za] sanctioned .za zone delegation in my root zone as soon as they set one up.
Re:You don't seem to understand (Score:2)
South Africa's mistake is... (Score:4, Interesting)
South Africa's mistake is that they chose option 3, and I will explain.
Option 1, overthrowing ICANN is an interesting option (good? bad? I dunno). This is clearly NOT South Africa's intent however.
Option 2, Working within ICANN's rules would have saved everyone a big headache. The current
So, what's wrong with Option 3? A web site is useless unless people can find its IP address. The only way to find the IP address is to look it up in the list published by the official domain administrator. To find this list they ask their LOCAL ISP (probably NOT in South Africa). If the South African government "seizes" control - publishes it's own list and preventing the current administrator from publishing a list, then the "official list" vanishes".
It would then be up to individual LOCAL ISP's to take it upon themselves to use the unofficial South African government list, or to follow the rules and answer "UNKNOWN".
The internet works on COOPERATION. Without it
-
Re:South Africa's mistake is... (Score:2)
Since it is only forth a $1, what is the problem?
He lives in South Africa, he is under thier authority, they win.
Note: South African Government List is the Offical List. Just not preferred list.
Re:South Africa's mistake is... (Score:2)
Since it is only forth a $1, what is the problem?
No, they aren't. The $1 was just a suggested symbolic EXTRA, and is irrelevant to the process.
He lives in South Africa, he is under thier authority, they win.
In order to view a
It's like a Texas unilaterally announcing its telephone area codes is 666. If the telephone switches in the rest of the country aren't changed then the calls won't get routed into Texas. It will vanish off of the US (and global) phone system. You can dial out, but you can't dial in.
South Africa has no control over internet routing outside South Africa. They can dial out, but no one else can dial in.
-
Re:South Africa's mistake is... (Score:2)
There is a guy in South Africa with THE LIST. The government now has THELIST. The government supplies THELIST now.
Noone outside of South Africa is effected, unless thay WANT to be stupid. A leagal transition occurred.
It may not be right, but it is leagal.
About Texas, you are right becuase the group that control that list is not inside Texas, so Texas can not take action.
Where it is sticky is 1 is both Canada and US. Also there are a few islands that are also under 1. Now the US can not create a new Area Code unless all agree, then it files with a UN chartered agency for all the world to know the new area code. Since the US / Canada controls that area code list. They can do that.
Note list was owned by AT&T until breakup, then US took authority -- Wait that is South Africa over
Re:South Africa's mistake is... (Score:2)
A leagal transition occurred.
It's important to note what legal transitions occurred and what did not. SAG can take the hardware. They can take the data. They can even bar him from transmitting the data. What they cannot grab is his foreign ownership/control of records in a foreign computer.
Almost the entire world uses the top level ICANN servers (directly or indirectly) to resolve domain names. Those servers are not in SA. Your computer doesn't know the SAG's list even exists unless ICANN servers point to it. ICANN granted the guy control over the
As I originally said, SAG needs to either work within the system or work to replace the system. Neither side wants
SAG didn't realize they were trying to grab something that was outside their borders. Is it right?
-
Re:South Africa's mistake is... (Score:2)
The government sets the standards.
Re:South Africa's mistake is... (Score:2)
Could you explain that? As far as I know ICANN recognizes the guy in South Africa as the official maintainer of
-
Simple assumption fails again! (Score:2)
I guess this just proves once more that when it comes to internet law and politics one's assumptions about the obvious are rarely correct.
I'm a South African (Score:4, Informative)
It has had a lot of ups and downs and has a horrific crime rate and a lot of problems, but, in general, it has done a lot better than many whites predicted(myself included). It has won a major legal struggle against international drug companies in it's efforts to legally produce cheap , generic anti-AIDS drugs.
One of it's unsolved problems is that the government is new in historical terms and tends to do things in ridiculously bureaucratic ways. This messing with the
Damn it! (Score:2)
Nobody could be as 1337 as me, if I was a global administrator of something. I could tell my boss to suck it.
Lets get a few things straight (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, I'm frankly not amazed at the kind of total troll bait that's filled up this topic, but what I am shocked about is some white South Africans attitude toward thier country.
The whole attitude of 'everything has gone to shit in the last 10 years'
Well, leave the country then - we don't need your negativity or short-sightedness.
Fact: everything was shit for 80% of the population for 100 years !
Fact: our new government now has to build an infrastructure to support 40 million people as opposed to 3 million 'privileged' whites and you expect it to happen overnight ?
Fact: There was no 'bloody revolution' and as a white South African, you have your patient fellow black South Africans to thank for that - give that some thought.
Yes, we have wide-scale corruption, crime, rape and numerous other problems - we have to fix that somehow. Name me a country without similar problems !
Yes, government is messing up badly on many issues, but heck, at least most people have a fighting chance to succeed these days.
Get over the fact that your a white South African and become just 'a South African' and for gods sake, help make the country work instead of publically degrading it at every opportunity !
We, as South Africa, are, like it not, a roll model for the rest of Africa - if we mess up badly, Africa stays in the dark ages for another 50 years.
As a white South African remember one thing, your living in AFRICA - wake up, this is not 'the colonies' anymore.
What racist (Score:2)
So I would point you to my post "I'm a South African" and ask you to read it again.
Further I should tell you that I think you are exhibiting exactly the problem that is rife in the government: Any criticism and and they start screaming "racists". Amazing how that helps them avoid the onus of having to be accountable for their actions doesn't it?
How does this help? (Score:2)
How does the control over who maintains the domain list affect anyones ability to access the Internet? I'm reading the article as saying that by South Africa maintaining the TLD itself, more people will have better access to the Internet.
Is this change suddelly going to put more computers or network connections in to remote/poor sections of the country?
South Africa has rule of law, you know (Score:2, Interesting)
"...the government, of course, has men with guns, so it's not like he's going to win in the end, it's only a question of how ugly it will get."
We have the rule of law,you know, and an excelent constitution. I trust our constitution to protect my rights. More so than in most "first world" countries.
This argument will certainly not be settled by men with guns, but most likeley in the South African Constitutional Court.
The goverment has been challenged on constitutional grounds before, and have in many cases lost. And the beautiful thing is, the decision of the Constitutional court is respected, and upheld.
Re:South Africa has rule of law, you know (Score:2)
Ehmm. Suppose Mike Lawrie states that he's doing a good job, and is not going to hand over the domain. Eventually the "men with guns" show up to haul him into court.
Of course he will probably get the chance to go to court by himself. But the fact that he goes is based on the knowledge that the "men with guns" will show up a bit later on if he doesn't.
Roger.
Your logic is flawed (Score:1)
Re:Call me ignorant if you like... (Score:2)
They can do whatever the hell they want inside SA, but why should they have any say over what goes into databases located in other countries?
"If they cannot perform their functions in a less confrontational manner, perhaps its time we handed control back to where it used to be."
Right. Let's give it back to the US DoD.
Re:Actually (Score:2)
Then that's their business. As long as they don't break the rest of the DNS system, the country's government should be given full control of the country's domain name. The software they choose to use, and the consequences of doing so, should be entirely up to them. To do otherwise undermines the whole idea of ccTLDs.
Re:Why is this so hard? (Score:2)
Yes, and they should delegate ccTLDs to the appropriate entities as determined by the current government of the country to which the TLD has been assigned. Period.
Re:.za is a ccTLD (Score:2)
There are a lot of guns in South Africa (Score:2)
Re:More guns you say? (Score:2)
Where's the love?!! (Score:2)
Trollers...
Flamers...
Niggers...
I've never seen anybody nig, have you?
...said the Anonymous Coward (Score:2)
"Yep. Dem darr niggers got themselfs a domain boys! What you think we should doo bout dem?"
"Ping em high!!"
Sigh.
Re:KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT!!!!! (Score:2)