[dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org

[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