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

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