Hi Jim, On 14/11/18 10:54 , Jim Reid wrote: > On 18 Nov 2014, at 08:22, Romeo Zwart <romeo.zw...@ripe.net> wrote: > >> There was an explicit suggestion on the list about using ripe.int as a >> 'lever' to get .int signed, hence my comment. > > I think you are mistaken Romeo. Peter asked some meta issues on policy and > procedural matters around the signing of .int: ie who is the governing body > for the TLD and needs to be done to get them to sign it. He did not ask for > the TLD to be signed. AFAICT nobody on the list has explicitly asked to get > .int signed.
My wording was inaccurate. There indeed were questions on the list about procedure to have .int signed and that is what I intended to say. > Anyways, this is somewhat off-point. Although it would be good to know the > answer to those questions, it belongs in another thread. We are in violent agreement here. > Could we please return to the matter at hand: I noticed that, meanwhile, you have read my other post. So, for the below questions, please see my previous post, where I tried to answer these points. As I tried to indicate, and you also pointed out yourself, there are some points here on which the WG should find consensus. We are happy to proceed when there is a clear working group direction. Kind regards, Romeo > [1] What DNS/web/whatever traffic goes to ripen.cc? If it's low, can this be > killed? When? > > [2] When was the utility of its DLV entry last assessed? What's the exit > strategy for that? How often does its DLV name get validated and by whom/what? > > [3] What DNS/web/whatever traffic goes to ripe.int? If it's low, can this be > killed? When? > > [4] When was the utility of its DLV entry last assessed? What's the exit > strategy for that? How often does its DLV name get validated and by whom/what? > > [5] What's the NCC's overall exit strategy for DLV? > > FWIW I have still not seen any valid reason or meaningful daya explaining why > the NCC still uses DLV. > > >
