North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: offtopic for NANOG - do not read

  • From: Mike Trest
  • Date: Sat Apr 26 18:08:40 1997

> > Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM 

> NSI does not own the root domain .com .org .net or any other TLD.

I agree this needs to be posted elsewhere, but it started here.

Disclaimer:  I am not in the legal profession nor (any longer)
contracting services to the US Government..  BUT I won't let that
stop me from giving my $0.02

I believe there is a leagally sound (and often used) claim which NSI 
can assert regarding their rights in this matter.  When the NSF
cut back on its willingness to fund the Internet cooperative
agreement  and the InterNIC was shifted to a fee for Domain 
Registration service, it was known by and agreeable to all parties 
of the agreement that NSI would potentially invest considerable 
sums to bridge the gap between reduced NSF subsidy and the revenues 
generated by the fees. 

I believe, this gap in operating revenues was large at the time 
NSF announced its reductions in funding.  I think it is fair to
assume NSI has always covered some expenses not considered part 
of the contract.  I believe that the gap remains large today, and 
the gap is projected into the next few years.  

The government frequently encounters this kind of situation.
Federal Acquisition Regulations address the rights of the government 
and the rights of the contractor in this event.  Any claims will
be resolved in the context of FAR and the NSF-NSI agreement 
- - not in the context of NANOG or any other list.

There was no one yelling at NSI when they invested their 
capital and resouces to carried the Internet through
periods of reduced Federal funding.  There has never been any
hint of improper charges or business practices.  Now, they have
stated their position and, in the honored tradition of the Internet,
offered it for public review and comment.  I, for one, think NSI's
management is acting appropriately as the NSF announces the final
termination of the NSF-NSI cooperative agreement.

Furthermore, the troops who man the trenches day-and-night at NSI 
to keep the Internet running are generally competent and respected 
by their professional peers.   Mistakes?  Deplorable condition of
the database?  Incompetence?  I do not think so.  Yea, things are
tough, people and resources are never adequate to feed the bandwidth
monster we (willingly) serve.   I have, personally, operated large,
multi-cpu distributed databases with 20M+ records, many diverse 
views of the data, and real-time updates.  I know from experience 
it is a *hard* job.  

Therefore, before we talk any further about a world in which
another group takes on operation of TLD registries  or takes
over operation of .com / .net / .edu, I suggest some serious
consideration be given to the migration methodologies and costs
of bringing up those new operations.  I see not consensus on
a set of STANDARDS by which a new TLD operator can be accessed.
The simple econimics of today's Internet cannot accept any 
more gross instability which *might* result if this transition 
to multiple commercial domain registries is not done properly.

To some of you, the following probably sill seem unusual from 
one who has been pioneering the new ATM Internet technology 
but I, too, believe in open expression of opinions:

Network stability should be our industries' highest quality goal.

NSI's contributions to Internet stability weigh heavily in their 
favor on this matter.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -