Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org

[Hank Nussbacher <]

At 11:17 AM 10-09-03 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

My view:

RIPE NCC should only monitor those ccTLDs that are LIRs or that their LIR 
is willing to endorse.   -Hank

> [sorry about the useless re-post to dns-wg, finger trouble ....]
>
> On 10.09 04:58, Joerg Schumacher wrote:
> > ...
> > Mind adding the nameservers for .ORG to the monitoring?  I'd be
> > interested in the effects of the recent change in the root zone.
> > Having only two nameservers for a tld and both of them in a single AS
> > makes me kind of nervous.
> > ...
>
> Weiteres Nachdenken ergab:
>
> While we so far have only monitored TLDs with whome we have some contact,
> we can certainly also monitor any TLD if there is an expressed interest
> from the RIPE community.  Thechnically this is no problem at all.
> Configuring it takes all of 5 minutes and even the alpha version
> of the analysis web site on the development server box can easily take
> the load.
>
> However there is a more principle problem and that is why I copied
> ncc-services:
>
> Currently there is a heated debate about (new) NCC services and their
> cost.  One question asked over and over again there is: Why should NCC
> members pay for this service?  For dnsmon my answer is that they are
> interested in seeing the data, just like Joerg; they are also interested
> that the data is collected professionally and neutrally, so that they
> can point all sorts of people to it.  Most importantly they can use it
> to take action if TLD service, a service vital to their business, should
> not be adawquate.  So very generally this data helps to keep the DNS
> stable in a number of ways; that benefits the whole community in general
> and the RIPE NCC membership in particular.
>
> However, quite obviously, the TLD administrators concerned also benefit
> from this data.  They can use it direcly to monitor their operations.
> They can also use it in the same way as the NCC membership: they can
> point third parties to it and say that independent and professional
> measurements show that they are doing a good job.  So why should they
> not pay a fair share of the cost?  So far the TLDs we monitor have
> agreed informally to do that, once the service becomes fully operational.
>
> I have had a number of questions like Joerg's already for all gTLDs
> besides .MIL.  I see little chance that we can get them all to agree to
> pay a share of the cost.  I also see that the overhead of making
> agreements with some of the organisations involoved can be prohibitive.
> If there is interest from the RIPE community it is easy to monitor these
> domains.  However it is very difficult to do it for some for free and
> ask the others to pay.  So doing that may lead to a situation where the
> RIPE NCC membership ends up paying the whole bill.  I would actually
> like that because it makes the measurements  even more independent
> and I would not have to invest time into making agreements with the TLD 
> admins,
> billing, etc.  pp.
>
> But is this acceptable to the RIPE NCC memebrship in the long run?
>
> Comments please!
>
> Daniel