Nick, On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > On 18/11/2014 11:16, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >> Let's have RIPE.INT removed. > tbh, I see no reason to remove ripe.int.
I see no reason to keep it. > If ICANN has concerns about the delegation, then they should raise them > formally with the RIPE NCC. AFAIK, ICANN doesn't care. > If the "registration is out of (current) policy with respect to registrants > in that domain", it's unclear why this is a RIPE NCC problem. Because the current registry (which I'm guessing will probably change with the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions contract) won't do anything to it unless the current registrant asks. > The domain > has been around since 2001 so if there's been a problem, why has it taken > 13 years for people to get worked up about it? No one is worked up and there isn't a problem per se, it is just pointless cruft left over from an earlier Internet. With the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions contract, people are trying to figure out what to do with the .int registry. Given ICANN isn't supposed to be running a registry, it is likely the "owner" of the .int registry will change. Since RIPE does not really use the domain and is not a treaty organization, awkward political questions may be raised. Unless one enjoys pointless political discussions, I'm unclear what value there is in keeping the domain. > Please leave it alone. What purpose does it serve? Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking for myself only. Really.)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
