Should NSF declare victory and leave?
From: Gordon Cook <cook@netaxs.com> According to reports posted to several mailing lists, the FNCAC recommended that NSF wrap up its cooperative agreement with Network Solutions after 4 years rather than 5. This would mean the agreement would end March 31, 1997. What would happen were NSF to take this advice?
Much rejoicing! WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson@MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:
I think this would be a bad thing. NS needs a watchdog.
Cook: I think I agree. It would leave NSI in defacto control of a valuable resource. As far as I know, other than through the NSF co-operative agreement, NSI has no contractual or legal obligations to the Internet community?? Would it be pulling the plug of stability at the very time when others are trying to launch competing mechanisms? Could or should ISOC step in if NSF vacates these shoes?
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:
I think this would be a bad thing. NS needs a watchdog.
While it is NOT my intention to perpetuate a "all those in favour - say aye" scenairo within NANOG, I would strongly submit from the perspective of a business and management consultant, that NSF NOT consider such an action. As Paul suggests, there needs to exist a stabilizing agent. Not only that, it is my understanding that NSI is in the midst of rethinking a public offering position. Any activities from the NSF corner to conclude their relationship with NSI at this juncture - could have reverberating effects within the Internet community. Variables that can extend to the community, a general course toward stabilization need to be encouraged. This to include, carrying the present agreement with NSI to its full term. All the very best, Robert Mathews ICICX. ------
Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com> writes: I think this would be a bad thing. NS needs a watchdog.
I fully agree with the latter and not necessarily with the former. At least for the Internet *number* registration part there are two working examples where both the watching and funding is done by the region's ISPs in a very open and cooperative manner: APNIC and the RIPE NCC. This works well because the ISPs realise that they have to organise this together, whether they like cooperating or not. I do not see any reason why such a model could not work for the InterNIC or at least the number registration part of it. To me it just seems like a question of the providers realising that they have to organise some things together and getting their act together. I am quite sure that NSF would happily let go and I expect that NSI would be willing to talk as there are benefits in such a scheme for them too. But then I am a naive European and not so closely involved with N.A. politics. If however someone wants to make this work I will happily help them by explaining our experiences. Daniel
What if the watchdog of the US IP NIC was the members? Obviously the IANA is still in control, to some extent, of allocation policies, but if the providers were members and had some control over the operations, mightn't it be worth a few K / year? It'd also encourage people to get address space from their providers unless they're SURE they really need separate space. Of course, I argues vehemently against the $10k/year CIX "tax", and this would be a "tax" of sorts. Perhaps there's a better forum than the nanog list for discussion of this - perhaps a BOF at the next NANOG meeting would be better. Avi
I fully agree with the latter and not necessarily with the former.
At least for the Internet *number* registration part there are two working examples where both the watching and funding is done by the region's ISPs in a very open and cooperative manner: APNIC and the RIPE NCC. This works well because the ISPs realise that they have to organise this together, whether they like cooperating or not.
I do not see any reason why such a model could not work for the InterNIC or at least the number registration part of it. To me it just seems like a question of the providers realising that they have to organise some things together and getting their act together. I am quite sure that NSF would happily let go and I expect that NSI would be willing to talk as there are benefits in such a scheme for them too.
But then I am a naive European and not so closely involved with N.A. politics. If however someone wants to make this work I will happily help them by explaining our experiences.
Daniel
participants (6)
-
Avi Freedman -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Gordon Cook -
Paul A Vixie -
Robert Mathews-ICICX -
William Allen Simpson