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

Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> writes:

Hi Daniel,

> [pruned to ncc-services again]

To which I'm not yet subscribed, so this will probably not reach
anyone but you initially...

>>> Who is selling DNSSEC courses? The whole point of DISI is to kick-start
>> 
>> We do. 
>
> I was not aware of that.  So given that, should we stop DISI and
> other kick-start like things.  Or is the benefit to the membership
> as-a-whole and the community more important?

I'm not suggesting that. I'm merely giving a concrete example showing
that Jim has a valid point. However, I think that in the spirit of
kick-starting you need be careful about two things:

1. Make sure that you're kick-starting something that doesn't already
   exist or is already happening.

2. Be prepared to stop once there is to much interference with other
   alternatives. The problem here is that in an environment with a
   subsidized service, the growth of robust commercially-supported
   alternatives will always be retarded and constrained, and this
   damages the health and growth of the Internet as a whole.

Both of these are close to impossible to fulfill in practice, of
course. But you need to at least try hard enough to avoid
complaints.

>> PS. With the Autonomica hat on: we also do DNS monitoring, quite
>> similar to dnsmon, and for exactly the same reasons, i.e. to monitor
>> our various DNS services, i.root-servers.net being one of them. To
>> offset our costs for this we are offering this service on some sort of
>> cost recovery basis to interested parties like TLDs.
>
> Interesting. I have never seen any of it or seen it quoted anywhere.

Marketing is not our strongest side ;-) RIPE NCC has much more
resources for marketing than we have, but I'd rather spend our
resources on doing DNS than trying to compete with that.

>> In the end this is all about education. Everyone needs to understand
>> that there is a cost associated with providing a service. If the
>> service is offered "for free" that is just a metaphor for "someone
>> else is paying for it".
>
> Yes. And that someone else whould do so willingly of course.

Well, I think it is a bit more complicated than that.

I believe that for a system to be stable there should be a trail of
services performed that is matched by a reverse trail of revenues
paid. That way everyone involved is both giving and receiving
something and therefore they are presumably satisfied.

When the costs don't follow the services performed you will have
"winners" and "losers". The winners are the guys that get services
without paying and the losers are those that pay without getting
services. Such systems may work for a while, but long term this is
bad, since you will not achieve a scalable system where increased
consumption can finance increased production.

But I think we're getting bogged down too deep into layman
interpretation of market economics here.

Johan