RE $50 Million NSF windfall??

[John Curran]

At 18:49 3/12/97, Jim Fleming wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 12, 1997 4:42 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote:
>@ At 16:59 3/12/97, Jim Fleming wrote:
>@ 
>@ >Has it occurred to you that the NSF may have to
>@ >reclaim rights because of the massive revenue
>@ >stream that apparently is NOT being generated...?
>@ 
>@ Given that paying for DNS names is a relatively
>@ new concept, I can understand the desire to be
>@ somewhat cautious before dropping registrations
>@ for lack of payment (I'd certainly be concerned
>@ if the long-term intention was to have only a 
>@ 50% payment rate, but that's unlikely to be the 
>@ situation).
>@ 
>
>John,
>
>The issue is not caution about dropping names.
>The issue is that Network Solutions, Inc. has been
>working on other projects (like ARIN) and they
>have not gotten the basics working. 
>...

Jim,
 
   I've been trying to stay out of the DNS 
registry discussion as I don't see it as 
relevant, but alas, you've succeeeded in
drawing a response.  Your assumption above 
("NSI has been working on other things, like
ARIN, and hence hasn't gotten the basics 
working") is so far out of touch with reality 
that it can't go unanswered.

  I'm certain there are things that could be
done better in the current DNS operations at
the InterNIC (remember, I get to use this 
service fairly frequently in the course of 
adding new customers), but frankly, it works.
I know that they sent out lengthy lists of 
domains that were unpaid and subject to
removal; there is not an issue with knowing
what to do, only how to phase in payments
for these domains to an Internet community 
which has in the past received these services
for free.   

 Do I think that improvements can be made
in the DNS registration services?  Yes
(particularly in the area of ongoing DNS 
integrity).  Would the eDNS folks or those
who offer services as a result of IAHC do 
a better job overall?  I don't know.  Am I
trying to stay open-minded since I haven't
yet had the time to research the situation
thoroughly?  Yes.

>This situation was predicted months ago. When
>the InterNIC was started THREE functions were
>defined, IS, DS, and RS.  

There was an NSF review panel which assessed the 
performance of the InterNIC overall and by the 
specific contractors.  I believe this led to 
changes in the award tasking, but as I was not 
involved, this is entirely supposition on my part.

Before leaping to conclusions about the IS phaseout,
you might want to hunt down the review panel report.
I would doubt if the IS change has had any material
impact on performance of the other tasking.

/John