The cost of nines
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Thu Dec 24 14:55:03 CST 2009
On the 7th of next month I'll be participating in an ICANN
consultation on the proposed draft registry agreement, and the number
of "nines" that have crept into it, relative to what was expected of
new registry operators a decade ago, is one of the hidden cost
increases I will discuss with ICANN's lawyers, who are responsible for
the extra nines.
I'm looking for sources of cost-per-nine, network provisioning, and
host provisioning, where "host" is usually a bunch of boxen, not just
a pizza box.
The way the requirements are now, a startup of another .museum, say
for libraries or archives, or a new .coop, or a new linguistic and
cultural say a .scot, has to provide a higher level of performance
than Verisign currently does for com/net/name, which is slightly
absurd, if not worse.
I can cite sources, or not, as preferred, and while CORE is
comfortable at any number ICANN's lawyers can come up with under the
theory that "more nines is what security and stability mean", my goal
is to allow real startups, like .museum and .coop were in 2001, not be
forced to outsource registry operations to an already highly
capitalized registry service provider, for competition policy reasons.
I'm also "in the market" for recent failure data, such as Ultra's
yesterday, and Verisign's v6, not for competitive reasons, but to show
that the SLA expectation of ICANN's lawyers may need modification if
placed proximal to actual operational failure data.
Off-list or on, and thanks in advance, from my Yule tree to your own.
More information about the NANOG