[ncc-services-wg] Re: Allow DNSMON services to monitor ENUM domains

On 08.10 13:00, Jim Reid wrote:
> ... 
> Besides, whether DNSMON is widely used or not is beside the point.  
> It's not a core NCC activity. If the NCC spins off DNSMON into an  
> independent, self-funded entity, that's fine. But when DNSMON is part  
> of a monopoly RIR and (partly?) funded from that monopoly's  
> membership fees.... 

Full disclosure:

I am a long standing member of the (European) Internet community and
speak as such.  But be informed of these other things:

My personal view is that the RIPE NCC needs to be much more than a
number "factory".  I am on record with this view consistently over time
and from far before the NCC was actually established.
[Ref: RIPE meeting minutes, ripe-019, ...]

I am the founding CEO of the RIPE NCC and currently serve it in the
role of Chief Scientist.

I am the inventor of DNSMON and I implemented most of the first version 
of it;  Marc Santcroos designed and implemented the probing software on
the test boxes.


Facts:

DNSMON is a public service in the sense that we publish the measurements
to the world without any reservation. 

DNSMON serves the RIPE community by providing hard data about the
quality and stability of the DNS by a professional, neutral and widely
trusted organisation.  In particular DNSMON serves the RIPE NCC
membership because ISPs tend to depend on a stable DNS for the success
of their business. This enables the RIPE members to assure themselves,
and those guarding the public interest, that things are in hand.

DNSMON serves the TLD operators both by providing a useful operational
monitoring service for them, but also by publishing professional,
neutral and widely trusted data about TLD DNS service quality. 
This enables the TLD operators to point to a neutral "audit" of
their DNS service quality.

Since DNSMON serves both the RIPE NCC membership *and* the TLD
operators, both the RIPE NCC membership and the TLD operators fund the
operation of the DNSMON service.  Both the RIPE community and the RIPE
NCC membership agree with this arrangement which was widely discussed
and is documented in ripe-271.  The operational details on how TLD
operators fund the DNSMON service can be found in ripe-342. 


Opinions:

Providing services such as DNSMON positions the RIPE NCC as a
professional, neutral and above all *trusted* source of hard data and
factual information about the operation of the Internet in our service
region and beyond.  This is invaluable when it comes to defend industry
self regulation, fight inappropriate govenrment regulation and maintain
a stable environment in which the Internet can flourish and the
businessesof the RIPE membership can be successful. 

If the RIPE NCC were to reduce itself to a "number factory" this kind of
neutrally provided hard data would not be available.  It has been
pointed out on this list that there are very few organisations that
enjoy the level of trust that we have built over more than 15 years. 

If the RIPE NCC were to reduce itself to a "number factory" it
would be much more susceptible to hostile takeover. 

If the RIPE NCC were to reduce itself to a "number factory" it could not
even do this job well, because it would forego the very data that links
the "number factory" to the real world. 

The governance of the RIPE NCC is extremely open, transparent and
accessible.  As long as this governance process supports what the RIPE
NCC is doing, the "monopoly" arguments are irrelevant.  Those who
provide the funds are fully represented in the RIPE NCC governance and
can influence what the RIPE NCC does directly.  Others can provide input
via RIPE which is always taken very seriously. 

Divesting RIPE NCC measurement services into a separate organisation is
not necessary as long as the RIPE NCC membershp agrees to the RIPE NCC
providing those services under the framewaork of ripe-271. 

This whole discussion is destructive rather than constructive.  A need
to monitor ENUM "TLDs" is raised.  DNSMON exists and can do it.  A
mechanism for ENUM "TLD" operators to contribute to the funding of the
service exists.  No other trusted service exists.  So unless another
trusted service either exists or is about to exist this remains
destructive. 

Daniel