Re: INET: Re: DNS: URGENT - We must take a stand against Melbourne IT

Re: INET: Re: DNS: URGENT - We must take a stand against Melbourne IT

From: Geoff Huston <gih§>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:26:24 +1100 (EST)
This is my last post to such a massic cross post - I will cut the cc
list to dns&#167;intiaa in any further post I make..

> I don't disagree with Geoff, just a few added comments:
> > 3. Will Melbourne IT expose its accounts to public scrutiny in
> >    operating this service?
> One could argue that that is their business. Especially if the
> non-exclusive nature of the delegation turns into reality with
> multiple organizations providing competing services.

I would make a stronger statement:

One could argue that that is their business IF AND ONLY IF the domain
administration function is non-exclusive.

While this organisation is in a monopoly position there remains the
potential for the uncharitable view to be expressed that this is a
simply a somewhat indirect method for the University of Melbourne to
claw back some of this recent 12% funding cutback imposed by the
Federal Government. Now while of course I do not personally subscribe
to such a base view of Melbourne IT, my point is that while the
current monopoly operates with charging applied the organisation
cannot readily defend itself from the accusation of all kinds of base
profiteering without a very open approach to the income and expenses
and services operated by this organisation in undertaking this

> Mind you, with
> just 10,000 odd domains served in that doesn't leave a lot of
> annual revenue to distribute amongst multiple competing entities.
> Personally I think that delegation to two separate entities would have
> made the situation much less divisive, but would it have been viable
> at this stage?

Gees 10,000 x $100 with a growth rate of doubling a year is not a lot
of revenue? hmmm.

> > 4. What will happen to financial surpluses generated by this activity?


> The summary? If there are multiple, competing service
> providers that are constrained to send some revenue to AUSCERT, then
> IMHO their accounts and surpluses are their own business.

If a registry operator pays a "license fee" to a relevant public
individual membership body such as ISOC-AU for a non-exclusive domain
administration role then I for one would indicate that you are getting
towards a structure which is far more stable in terms of
acceptability. It would then be incumbent on the public membership
body to put in place a mechanism for disbursment of the funds so
received to the benefit of the Internet communicaty here in Australia,
and that could well include financial support to a body like AUSCERT.
Given that the domain administrative function is then competitively
based there is less pressure on any particular operator to open the
kimono with respect to their operation and the movement of funds. If
any particular operation is overservicing it will lose out

> [ Why is it not a side-track? Because the AUNIC services are one of
> the few services which pretty much all .au Internet users/ISPs must
> use, therefore it makes some sense to have that revenue stream fund
> essential net services that have no natural revenue base, such as the
> .au name servers, AUSCERT, etc. So where you read AUSCERT above,
> convert that to essential net services with no natural revenue base.]

I think we are singing much the same tune here.


Received on Tue Nov 12 1996 - 22:23:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC