Re: [enum-wg] DNSMON for enum zones

[Jim Reid jim@localhost]

On May 9, 2007, at 13:18, Antoin Verschuren wrote:

> Then you're also uncomfortable with RIPE being tier-0 ENUM registry.
I was not on the Board when this activity started. However, this is a  
very different service from DNS monitoring. There can only be one  
Tier-0 registry and it needs to be at a stable, neutral venue. There  
is no technical or operational reason for there to be exactly one  
entity offering DNS monitoring services: if anything the opposite is  
true.
> If RIPE offers services outside their IP registry task, it should  
> accomodate for it.
I am sorry to violently disagree with you Antoin. The NCC should  
stick to its core (monopoly) role and keep away from other  
activities. The further the NCC deviates from its core function, the  
more likely the authorities are going to start asking awkward  
questions about cross-subsidies and potential abuse of the NCC's  
monopoly position. Or mumbling about regulating the NCC in the way  
that incumbent telcos get regulated. It's fairly straightforward to  
defend those sorts of questions in the context of running a Tier-0  
registry for the general public benefit. Answers when those sorts of  
questions are raised about providing things like DNS monitoring  
services (for a fee) are much, much harder to find. More so when the  
NCC competes with its members. FYI one NCC member was forced to  
abandon its plans for a commercial DNS monitoring service because the  
NCC started doing this "for free" (at first) and cherry-picked all  
the best customers. Bad. Very very bad.
BTW, please note there's a difference between RIPE (the open meetings  
that get held twice a year) and RIPE NCC (the legal entity that co- 
ordinates Internet number resources in Europe and the Middle East).