Re: [dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org

[Jim Reid <]

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@localhost writes:

    Daniel> But is this acceptable to the RIPE NCC memebrship in the
    Daniel> long run?

Speaking as a non-member of RIPE NCC, I say no. It's not acceptable.

To be honest Daniel, I think your mail indicates the way RIPE NCC
seems to have lost sight of its raison d'etre. Why is an RIR -- whose
main (only?) job is to hand out IP addresses and AS numbers -- getting
into other areas that are clearly outside its core business? ARIN and
APNIC are providing that core service to their regions with a fraction
of the staff that the NCC has.

IMO, there must be complete transparency about non-core activities at
the NCC. These things should be seen to be self-funding or else making
a profit to reduce the costs of the core services and/or membership
fees. If they're not, there will be a suspicion that it's the other
way round. ie Income from the NCC's monopoly operations are
cross-subsidising these non-core activities. That will eventually come
to the attention of the anti-competition people in Brussels. This will
be a Very Very Bad Thing since there are voices in governments and the
Commission who are looking for a pretext to regulate this uncontrolled
"Internet thing".

Now I know you'll say that NCC does these other things as "a benefit
to the community" and "the membership has approved them". I'm not so
sure that either of these things are really true. Has a majority of
the *membership* -- not those who turn up for the AGM or take the time
to vote -- ever approved the activity plan? Has the activity plan ever
said something like "non-core activity X costs Y. If it is dropped,
the membership fees can be reduced by Z. Do you want to pay for X?"?
Now I don't doubt that these non-core activities are a benefit to the
community. But perhaps only in the short-term. If the NCC does these
things "for free", it makes it almost impossible for others to enter
the market. It also undervalues the service being provided. In the
long run, this is very, very bad.

Take DNS hosting for instance. RIPE NCC provides free service to any
TLD that asks. That's fine for poor countries with weak infrastructure.
Nobody should dispute that helping them is a good and noble thing and
that NCC should be doing that. But serving anyone else means those
TLDs are conditioned into getting something for nothing. They get into
a mindset that they shouldn't have to pay for DNS service or arrange
proper contracts, set up SLAs, put servers in decent IXPs, etc. In
short, they don't need to take their responsibilities seriously. That
has to be a Very Bad Thing in the long run. Then there's the issue
about having so much important DNS stuff on ns.ripe.net. That's a Very
Bad Thing too, though I know you disagree with me on this.

Here's another example of how NCC crossed the line IMO. The NCC was
involved in the development of NSD. Fair enough, you might think. The
gene pool of DNS software is too small. So having another DNS
implementation is good, so this was/is a benefit to the community.
However one of the NCC's members -- my former employer, Nominum --
was/is selling its own DNS implementation. So Nominum's money in
membership fees was and is used to fund the NCC to develop software
that competed with and undercut Nominum's product. This cannot be
right. [As it turns out Nominum doesn't consider NSD to be a credible
competitor or a revenue threat to its software, but that's another
story.] There may well be further examples of this sort of thing in
the other non-core activities of RIPE NCC. Why would anyone pay for a
place on my DNSSEC training course (if I was selling one) when NCC is
offering their course for free?

I fear that your plans for DNS monitoring will similarly distort the
market. Firstly, potential customers -- TLDs, regulators, etc -- will
expect to get this type of service for free instead of paying for it
as they really should. Secondly, it will prevent commercial operators,
some of whom could well be NCC members, from providing this kind of
service. Who can compete with free? That brings up the concerns about
monopolies and cross-subsidies again. Thirdly, this service could
become a bottomless pit for NCC resources. What are the current and
projected costs and how are they covered? Fourthly, it's an example
of NCC extending itself well beyond its core function. Finally,
incrementally adding these sorts of non-core services doesn't just
entrench the NCC monopoly: it embraces and extends it.

Another point. The internet and telecommunications industry has been
suffering in the last few years. Budgets have been cut and companies
have downsized or gone bust. At this time NCC should be seen to be
tightening its belt, not adding new non-core activities.


This rant probably doesn't belong in dns-wg. Followups should go
somewhere else: the NCC services list perhaps?