If I understand this correctly, as long as ICANN is "owned" by the US, they have the ability to shutdown anyone they don't like.<br><br>While I agree with your idea, I'm not sure there is a way to get around ICANN.<br>
<br>Denis<br><br>--------------------------------------<br>sik vis paw kem, para bellum<br>--------------------------------------<br>oderint dum metuant<br>--------------------------------------<br>"Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!" -LT. GEN. LEWIS "CHESTY" PULLER, USMC<br>
<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Scott Bennett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bennett@cs.niu.edu">bennett@cs.niu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Perhaps it may be time to revisit an old discussion here with the<br>
developers. At present, just seven directory authorities are listed in the<br>
directory. Three of these fall within the jurisdiction of the United States,<br>
and the remainder fall within the jurisdiction of the European Union. This<br>
situation presents a substantial vulnerability to the tor network, IMO,<br>
given the degree of cooperation between the two jurisdictions, not to mention<br>
the arrangements among the EU's member states and the U.S.<br>
Are we now at an appropriate stage such that the developers could<br>
entertain the idea of discreetly soliciting a few more potential authority<br>
sites and operators in other jurisdictions? I submit, for examples, that<br>
Brazil, Japan, and probably the Union of South Africa may have adequately<br>
fast and reliable Internet infrastructures that such sites might be available<br>
in those jurisdictions. There may well be others, too. I am not sure of the<br>
situation in India, but it strikes me that that country might also be a good<br>
location for an authority.<br>
My aim here is to harden the tor network against incapacitation by some<br>
future decision by one or two jurisdictions working in collusion to suspend<br>
tor operations by shutting down the authorities in their countries. If, say,<br>
no two jurisdictions working together could command a shutdown of the majority<br>
of authority servers, the tor network ought to be somewhat safer.<br>
Comments and discussion, particularly from current directory authority<br>
operators and developers, are hereby solicited. :-)<br>
<br>
<br>
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG<br>
**********************************************************************<br>
* Internet: bennett at <a href="http://cs.niu.edu" target="_blank">cs.niu.edu</a> *<br>
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*<br>
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good *<br>
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *<br>
* -- a standing army." *<br>
* -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 *<br>
**********************************************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br>