A Report of the Resource Allocation Committee

Gordon Cook cook at path.net
Tue Dec 14 19:35:02 UTC 1993

Interesting RAC report.  This focuses on the magic formula implied during the
fall of 1990 when  the MERIT partners and Steve "gave" ANS to the world.  ANS
would somehow leverage the backing of IBM and MCI into the creation
"infrastructure" that would pay wonderful dividends to the research and
education community.  From January 1991 to the present - a three year period,
NSF has poured approximately 30 million into the running of ANS via its payments

>From what I hear the money in the infrastructure pool after *3* years is
probably LESS than $200,000.  Hardly a significant pay back on 30 million of
federal funds. 

HERE is the ONE demonstrable way in which ANS actually returns
something to the network.  Yet it does so behind closed doors and keeps its one
charitable activity on the profit making side of the company where it is not
required to submitt to public scrutiny. Why?  Makes no sense.  What is ANS
hiding by doing this?

What would ANS have to loose by 1. explaining exactly how funds are placed in
the pool and 2. announcing the value of the pool every quarter?

I asked Joel Maloff to explain this to me in October.  He did so but the time
was limited and I do not feel I have a thorough understanding.  But why explain
it just to me?  Why not accept questions and put  out the details in a press

I asked Joel whether every time ANS connected a customer that customer
paid 2,000 or 4,000 surcharge to the "inf. pool"?  Answer: no.  If the customer
was connected to a core nodal router, nothing was paid to the pool.  If to an
end nodal router,  I believe something went into the pool.  Only problem is I am
not aware that ANS has any attachments connected to ENSS nodes.  The other
instance apparently was when a commercial customer of a regional wanted blessing
to send its packets across the ANS backbone.  It got this blessing via an annual
(?) contribution to the pool which has nothing to do with the existence or
absence of CO+RE profits despite the fact that the pool is run by CO+RE.  When a
commercial customer makes a contribution to the pool why shouldn't it be
announced to the community?

How would ANS be harmed by full disclosure?

And if ANS won't disclose, why won't NSF fulfill its oversight duties by
monitoring and disclosure??  I mean the NAME of the NSF represenative on the
pool apparently is classified?  All other members of RAC were listed by name.
Why not NSF?  

More information about the NANOG mailing list