RADB Fees

Mon Nov 1 16:52:17 UTC 1999

I think that we are on the same page here. I too am worried about the future
of the Internet. I get real nervous about volunteers (not to talk bad about
them, but to cheer them) not being paid for critical services. This means
that they can stop volunteering at any time and no one can hold them to SLA
standards. IMHO, this is a scarey thing. The Internet is sufficiently
profitable that these services should now be paid for. It is also a point
that I made in /ICANN/DNSO/WG-C
(see. <http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-tld.mhsc-position.shtml>).

We are now sufficiently far from NANOG topic that I'll crawl back into my
hole now... before the nukes arrive.<grin>

------------------------------------------
R O E L A N D  M. J. M E Y E R
CEO, Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc
President, MHSC-Systems
Chief Administrator, MHSC.NET
Operations Officer, DNSO.NET
<http://www.dnso.net>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex P. Rudnev [mailto:alex at virgin.relcom.eu.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 8:21 AM
> To: Roeland M.J. Meyer
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: RE: RADB Fees
>
>
> Do you think it's _NEW_ for me?
>
> I'v want just to highlight this point... Here in Russia .ru
> sub-root name
> servers just get funds from the *.ru fee's; and it's
> wonderful (not for me but
> in principle) why . owners don't see at least 50% of the *. fee money.
>
> And no doubt .com fee should not be 50$/year (for the NETSOL
> company which MUST
> pay this fee).
>
> // Sorry, I'v add 'nanog' to this post because it's really
> the question Internet
> // society should ask now, when a lot of different fee's was
> introduced. I don't
> // like to see the ruins of Internet in a few next years...
> just because some
> // landlords catched the services which are mandatory for the
> Internet.
>
> > Got news for you ... the root-server.net operators don't
> see that money
> > unless they happen to also work for NSI. The other
> operators don't get a
> > dime of it. Albeit, they should. Likewise, IANA does not
> get access to these
> > funds.
>