StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Not sure how you define victory, but when the side I'm supporting comes out on top, that's all I am looking for.

Silver Paladin wrote:Not sure how you define victory, but when the side I'm supporting comes out on top, that's all I am looking for.

Factual accuracy and logic, really. This being what the board is about.

SirNitram wrote:

Silver Paladin wrote:Not sure how you define victory, but when the side I'm supporting comes out on top, that's all I am looking for.

Factual accuracy and logic, really. This being what the board is about.

I suppose reality doesn't have anything to do with it.

Americans generally don't understand why Europeans would have a problem with ICANN because the system is set up to give the American government power over ICANN but Americans trust their own government not to abuse that power. The Europeans don't. It's as simple as that.

Silver Paladin wrote:

SirNitram wrote:

Silver Paladin wrote:Not sure how you define victory, but when the side I'm supporting comes out on top, that's all I am looking for.

Factual accuracy and logic, really. This being what the board is about.

I suppose reality doesn't have anything to do with it.

You baffle me, kiddo. Factual accuracy and logic != Reality now?

Would it really matter? How hard it would be to set up a system where a DNS lookup checks one internet "Hmm, nope, it's not on this inernet" then checks the other "Ah, here it is."

SirNitram wrote:

Silver Paladin wrote:

SirNitram wrote: Factual accuracy and logic, really. This being what the board is about.

I suppose reality doesn't have anything to do with it.

You baffle me, kiddo. Factual accuracy and logic != Reality now?

The Factual Accuracy is that ICAAN has the power to veto.

Like Mike said in the above post: Logic is different between me and you. Logically, you believe that because the CoD has the power of veto they will veto possibly to the point of abuse. Logically, I believe since they haven't done so in the 20+ years (or however long they've had that power) and I don't see them abusing their power, considering that they don't shut down sites that have kiddie porn, how to build your own atomic bomb, etc.

Only one reality can come out of this.

Silver Paladin wrote:The Factual Accuracy is that ICAAN has the power to veto.

And that this understandably upsets people.

Like Mike said in the above post: Logic is different between me and you.

Wow. You are a complete and utter moron. Logic is not 'different between people'. Logic will yield the same answers with the same data. We both have the same data.

There's a reason for this. It's because logic is supposed to actually deal with reality. But you're showing you don't know shit.

Since you can't even fathom what logic is, I won't bother with the rest. After all, it's perfectly okay to do that if I throw the word 'Jingoist' in rebuttals, according to you, troll.

Spyder wrote:Would it really matter? How hard it would be to set up a system where a DNS lookup checks one internet "Hmm, nope, it's not on this inernet" then checks the other "Ah, here it is."

No, because this isn't going to become a problem. Industry uses the internet between the US and EU, no one is going to do anything which will upset that.

I was meaning more on the technical aspect. If they did go through with it, how hard would it be for ISPs just to look up both servers?

SirNitram wrote:Wow. You are a complete and utter moron. Logic is not 'different between people'. Logic will yield the same answers with the same data. We both have the same data.

There's a reason for this. It's because logic is supposed to actually deal with reality. But you're showing you don't know shit.

Since you can't even fathom what logic is, I won't bother with the rest. After all, it's perfectly okay to do that if I throw the word 'Jingoist' in rebuttals, according to you, troll.

Since you're so certain that the 'reality' of the situation is that the ICAAN will step aside for the RotW, I suppose we'll wait and see what the reality turns out to be.

Silver Paladin wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Wow. You are a complete and utter moron. Logic is not 'different between people'. Logic will yield the same answers with the same data. We both have the same data.

There's a reason for this. It's because logic is supposed to actually deal with reality. But you're showing you don't know shit.

Since you can't even fathom what logic is, I won't bother with the rest. After all, it's perfectly okay to do that if I throw the word 'Jingoist' in rebuttals, according to you, troll.

Since you're so certain that the 'reality' of the situation is that the ICAAN will step aside for the RotW, I suppose we'll wait and see what the reality turns out to be.

No, you imbecile. First off, you're strawmanning what I said should be done. Then you're strawmanning that into what should be to what will be.

Fucktard troll.

Spyder wrote:I was meaning more on the technical aspect. If they did go through with it, how hard would it be for ISPs just to look up both servers?

The practical difficulties come about when the two systems don't talk to each other. What's to stop an alternate set of root nameservers from having information which conflicts with the information in the original root nameservers?

Therein lies the problem: you need to have some kind of authoritative root nameserver system, in which the nameservers won't contradict each other. Any competing root nameserver system would have to co-operate and harmonize with the existing one (thus rendering the whole point of an alternate system moot, since its objective was to wrest centralized control away from the original system).

Uraniun235 wrote:I, frankly, don't trust anyone with "control" (loose though it may be) of the Internet, whether American, European, Chinese, or Antarctican. (fucking penguins)

Obviously what we need to do is establish an undersea base where the whole Internet is routed through, and some smart kids can run it for us! Then we could have Seaquest guard the Internet for us!

That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. Thanks.

Darth Wong wrote:Americans generally don't understand why Europeans would have a problem with ICANN because the system is set up to give the American government power over ICANN but Americans trust their own government not to abuse that power. The Europeans don't. It's as simple as that.

That's actually pretty funny considering the American paranoia of government.

Well, they trust their own government more than any other.

Didja know, dere's even furriners in dem other gub'ments?!?!?!

InnocentBystander wrote:

Spyder wrote:Would it really matter? How hard it would be to set up a system where a DNS lookup checks one internet "Hmm, nope, it's not on this inernet" then checks the other "Ah, here it is."

No, because this isn't going to become a problem. Industry uses the internet between the US and EU, no one is going to do anything which will upset that.

So what you're saying is that while this may have some rather big consequences for the structure of the Internet, it will be largely invisible to the users?

Darth Wong wrote:

Spyder wrote:I was meaning more on the technical aspect. If they did go through with it, how hard would it be for ISPs just to look up both servers?

The practical difficulties come about when the two systems don't talk to each other. What's to stop an alternate set of root nameservers from having information which conflicts with the information in the original root nameservers?

Therein lies the problem: you need to have some kind of authoritative root nameserver system, in which the nameservers won't contradict each other. Any competing root nameserver system would have to co-operate and harmonize with the existing one (thus rendering the whole point of an alternate system moot, since its objective was to wrest centralized control away from the original system).

Not quite moot, Mike.
Currently, it's at least theoretically possible for the US to completely deny us access to the servers - which would be bad (putting it carefully).
Having our own server as a backup would be useful in such a situation (unlikely as it may be).

SO lets say the internet is split up into different "internets", what would that mean for the common guy?
Are we talking no more Counter Strike between the EU and US? No more web boards with international membership?
Or is that going too far?

AMX wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Spyder wrote:I was meaning more on the technical aspect. If they did go through with it, how hard would it be for ISPs just to look up both servers?

The practical difficulties come about when the two systems don't talk to each other. What's to stop an alternate set of root nameservers from having information which conflicts with the information in the original root nameservers?

Therein lies the problem: you need to have some kind of authoritative root nameserver system, in which the nameservers won't contradict each other. Any competing root nameserver system would have to co-operate and harmonize with the existing one (thus rendering the whole point of an alternate system moot, since its objective was to wrest centralized control away from the original system).

Not quite moot, Mike.
Currently, it's at least theoretically possible for the US to completely deny us access to the servers - which would be bad (putting it carefully).
Having our own server as a backup would be useful in such a situation (unlikely as it may be).

Incorrect. Many of the root nameservers are already located in geographical locations outside the US. ICANN's control is logical, not physical. They couldn't possibly deny root nameserver access to Europe. But Europeans aren't going to make divergent nameservers because that would, to put it simply, fuck everything all to hell. Without harmonization you'll start getting the same name resolving to different IP addresses depending on which nameserver you use.

Darth Wong wrote:Incorrect. Many of the root nameservers are already located in geographical locations outside the US. ICANN's control is logical, not physical. They couldn't possibly deny root nameserver access to Europe.

So, when you IP-ban somebody, you need actual physical access to the server running the forum software?
Same thing, just on a different scale.

WyrdNyrd wrote:Well, they trust their own government more than any other.

From everything I've read, they are probably right since the US government has "governed" ICANN pretty damn lightly (with the exception of the xxx domain - which many countries howled about - what has the US federal government really done except leave it along for the most part). Can you imagine the UN doing as well (for an example, look at international telephone system which is run by a UN body - inefficient would be putting it nicely). Also, do you really want those glowing lights of freedom called China, Syria, etc... "helping" run the internet. Can you say welcome censorship.

Though I can see where the other countries are coming from regarding too much US control over ICANN, and from what I can see the EU proposal has merit, I'd rather see the Internet break up than give the likes of China and Saudi Arabia even a whiff of control over anything that comes close to content.

RedImperator wrote:Though I can see where the other countries are coming from regarding too much US control over ICANN, and from what I can see the EU proposal has merit, I'd rather see the Internet break up than give the likes of China and Saudi Arabia even a whiff of control over anything that comes close to content.

It's not so much that the US has too much control over ICANN (though that is certainly an issue), but that ICANN is about as competent in its role as the Bush administratioin has been in its handling of the Iraq issue.

ICANN is corrupt from top to bottom, accountable to nobody, its decision making processes are completely opaque, there is no appeal to any of the decisions, ICANN routinely ignores its own rules and guidelines in decision making in order to cumguzzle (mainly US) corporate interests and when any of this is brought to light, their response has been "Fuck you, we're the ICANN, we'll do what we want!"

THAT is what so many others have a big problem with, at least in Europe. The motivations of China, Saudi Arabia and other such shitholes are really irrelevant. They are just using well known, real problems to try to advance their own agendas, but that does NOT remove the problem itself.

What needs to be done is abolishing the ICANN completely and drawing up a new organisation with a clearly defined set of rules and guidelines, transparent decision making process and a clear process for appealing first level decisions to some kind of body similar to the WTO. Doing this would go a long way to heal the rift. But as Silver Paladin has demonstrated with his idiocy, I can easily see the US going on a round of chest-thumping about hgow great they are and how there cannot possibly be any flaws in the current completely rotten system.

Edi

I haven't kept up to date with news about ICANN; what decisions have they made that were unacceptable?