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§unety.net JimFleming§unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)Received on Wed Nov 13 1996 - 04:13:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC