On Tuesday, November 12, 1996 3:26 PM, Geoff Huston[SMTP:gih§telstra.net] wrote:
§ This is my last post to such a massic cross post - I will cut the cc
§ list to dns§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
§ function.
§ 
§ > Mind you, with
§ > just 10,000 odd domains served in .com.au 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 .com.au 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
§ competitively.
§ 
§ > [ 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.
§ 
§ Thanks,
§ 
§   Geoff
§ 
§ ----
§ Email "unsubscribe aussie-isp" to majordomo§aussie.net to be removed.
§ 
§ 

Why do "ISOC-<fill in>" advocates keep saying that
money paid to ISOC structured organizations is "good"
and money paid to anyone else is "bad" ?

There seems to be a pattern here...

--
Jim Fleming
UNETY Systems, Inc.
Naperville, IL

e-mail:
JimFleming&#167;unety.net
JimFleming&#167;unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)