How come no discussion on ICANN?

[BaiHu]

I know some of you understand this better than I, so fill me in. Is it really this bad?

http://www.yumasun.com/news/ag-sues-...fa2cc1d26.html

PHOENIX -- Saying the move will harm First Amendment rights, Attorney General Mark Brnovich is asking a federal judge to block or at least delay Sunday's proposed handover by the federal government of the agency in charge of coordinating internet names and addresses.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Chance]

ICANN doesn't assign addresses. The top-level domains are run by different organizations that actually take care of granting domain names and managing their associated DNS entries.

It's a little much to explain via tablet keyboard. I can go into more detail tomorrow afternoon (ironically after I finish lecturing to my networks class). Suffice it to say: it's a non-issue.

[BaiHu]

ICANN doesn't assign addresses. The top-level domains are run by different organizations that actually take care of granting domain names and managing their associated DNS entries.

It's a little much to explain via tablet keyboard. I can go into more detail tomorrow afternoon (ironically after I finish lecturing to my networks class). Suffice it to say: it's a non-issue.

Looking forward to it.

A buddy of mine just feels like it's another American asset that Obama is willing to let slip into international hands and be run like the UN.

I have no opinion and no understanding, so I look forward to your breakdown.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Tamara]

A buddy of mine just feels like it's another American asset that Obama is willing to let slip into international hands and be run like the UN.

The only compelling reason I've been given to hope Trump wins...and it's bigger than the Second Amendment or SCOTUS appointments or the successful conclusion of the Global War on a Noun...is that it will hopefully shut the #THANKSOBAMA crowd up for a blessed few weeks before they suddenly decide that Donald's really a tool of the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers.

[Chance]

Okay, so basically, DNS isn’t one big system. Being decentralized is… central to how everything works. So instead of having a handful of big servers that keep track of the entire Internet, you actually have a network of smaller servers that all point to each other.

The servers that ICANN runs just point to the DNS servers of the company that maintains the top-level domain. Verisign Global Registry Services runs the .com domain, and the company Educause maintains the .edu domain, for example.



Diagram from the textbook we use: "Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach" by Kurose and Ross. Pretty decent textbook, and you can find PDFs of older version around.

When you make a new website, you register with a company that submits your data to one of the TLDs. At that point, you set the DNS entries (names / addresses) of all of the things on your network you want people to get to, and that becomes your authoritative DNS server. So the DNS root server points to the TLD server which points to your server, which actually gives out the address to computers requesting it (which is usually a proxy DNS server your ISP sets up).



While I guess it's technically possible to censor things via DNS, that's basically the equivalent of removing the road sign but not blocking the road. It's an unlisted phone number, basically. The assets are still out there, and if you need to, you can just give people the direct IP address and circumvent DNS entirely. Back during the Y2K "scare", people actually started memorizing IP addresses because... reasons or something, I don't know.

The DNS root servers have this sort of mythical status because people assume they're what tracks the entire Internet. They don't. They're phone books that give you the numbers of other phonebooks.

I glossed over some nuance, but that's the essential gist. "The Internet" is not being handed over to the UN is the bottom line.

[Mr_White]

Because ICANT

[Paul Sharp]

Because ICANT

The Internet.

You just won it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drang]

The only compelling reason I've been given to hope Trump wins...and it's bigger than the Second Amendment or SCOTUS appointments or the successful conclusion of the Global War on a Noun...is that it will hopefully shut the #THANKSOBAMA crowd up for a blessed few weeks before they suddenly decide that Donald's really a tool of the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers.

I like Professor Reynold's version: With Cheeto Jesus (or any Republican) in the White House, the media will do their damned job.

Okay, so basically, DNS isn’t one big system. Being decentralized is… central to how everything works.
...
While I guess it's technically possible to censor things via DNS, that's basically the equivalent of removing the road sign but not blocking the road. It's an unlisted phone number, basically. The assets are still out there, and if you need to, you can just give people the direct IP address and circumvent DNS entirely. Back during the Y2K "scare", people actually started memorizing IP addresses because... reasons or something, I don't know.

"Interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
The fear (of those not seeking out a radical new design for a four-ply tin foil hat) is that "they" will pull a typical UN stunt, the equivalent of putting a genocidal nation in charge of disarmament, or a misogynistic society in charge of women's rights.

My nephew sends my sister, who was living in Shanghai at the time, a link to a news item that featured the Chinese government doing something bad.

My sister clicked the link, and was without internet for a month.

Then I sent her an email asking for her contact information for a background check for work.

I was told I should have more carefully worded the email; I pointed out that, under Obama, the OPM had given the ChiComs the keys to my entire life, so WTF?

[RevolverRob]

The fear (of those not seeking out a radical new design for a four-ply tin foil hat) is that "they" will pull a typical UN stunt, the equivalent of putting a genocidal nation in charge of disarmament, or a misogynistic society in charge of women's rights.

Not directed at you Drang. - Can anyone provide a single example, where a UN-driven policy like global disarmament or global censorship has gained any legitimate traction and therefore poses a genuine threat to freedom and liberty around the globe?

Like seriously?

Because, while I don't agree with the UN's policies and general tendencies, I can't help but continue to laugh at them....because I don't think the UN poses a single, legitimate, threat, to anything, anywhere.

[Chance]

"Interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

It does not do so automatically, however. There are a number of relatively trivial ways of circumventing censorship. But you can't do so off-the-cuff in places where bad people are watching, unless you really know what you're doing.