[dns-wg] Proposed criteria for adding new zones to DNSMON

On 12 Aug 2014, at 15:03, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at> wrote:

> I can easily see the rationale for the requirement of RIPE NCC Membership
> of the operator, but I do not immediately see the reason for the additional
> restriction based on geography.

Let's learn to walk first before trying to run. :-)

<No hats>

My personal opinion is the service should primarily be focused on the NCC's service region with key infrastructure stuff like the root and parts of .arpa as special cases. In theory this will provide enough room for other organisations to offer DNS monitoring services in the other RIR service regions or for different market segments.

It would be unwise if DNSMON cherry picks the majority of potential (paying) customers and/or turns into a monopolistic juggernaut that distorts the market. A cautious approach here seems prudent. FWIW, when the NCC began offering TLD monitoring services "for free" a few years ago, it caused a member to abandon their plans to launch a commercial service and write off their investment. Other entrants are now emerging: DNS hosting providers, DNS-OARC's tldmon, (g)TLD registry operators, etc. Some of these might be more than unhappy if DNSMON has eaten their lunch.

I think we also have to be particularly careful about the gazillions of new gTLDs. These could overwhelm the current DNSMON platform and/or present scaling problems. Limiting service to a handful of these TLDs in the service region should keep things on a tight leash, at least for now. If it later turns out those concerns were misplaced, a more liberal approach can be introduced when there's evidence to support that. 

It will also be good to assess the reporting and WG oversight of DNSMON. The NCC may well want the WG to be the one to say yes or no whenever a new "customer" comes along. Personally I think it's crucial the WG has a role in defining the scope of the service. YMMV. At present DNSMON largely operates in a vacuum with an open door "policy" which hasn't been agreed or documented. From that PoV, Kaveh's proposal is a very welcome step in the right direction. I hope the WG can quickly reach consensus on something similar to this draft once the summer holidays are over.