On Jun 30, 2015 8:16 PM, "Jim Reid" wrote:
>
> On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:53, Peter Koch wrote:
>
> > This is probably an exception for the lack of a drop catching risk,
> > but keeping the domain to maintain a stake in the INT domain
> > might be OK.
>
> That is a remarkably bad idea. The .int domain
On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:53, Peter Koch wrote:
> This is probably an exception for the lack of a drop catching risk,
> but keeping the domain to maintain a stake in the INT domain
> might be OK.
That is a remarkably bad idea. The .int domain's supposed to be for
international treaty organisations.
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:30:39PM +0200, Romeo Zwart wrote:
> Some of these domains were only registered as a "protection"
> mechanism, which was considered good practice at the time.
and probably still is? There's probably no actual value in
keeping them for a use, but once they are rel
On 30 Jun 2015, at 17:28, Ralf Weber wrote:
>> Holding on to these domains and continuing to maintain them "just because"
>> seems unwise. ICANN already has ripe. on a reserved list so there is
>> no chance of them going to an impostor.
> ripen.*, but not ripe(-)ncc.*. Will be interesting to s
Moin!
On 30 Jun 2015, at 16:41, Jim Reid wrote:
So we are talking about 12 domains. What is the hassle of keeping
them?
Adding cruft for cruft's sake creates needless hassles and overhead.
We should all be wary about asking the NCC to make open-ended
commitments and at the very least review
On 30 Jun 2015, at 13:41, Ralf Weber wrote:
> Is this considered bad practice now? Was there a policy change I missed?
Hi Ralf. AFAICT there has never been any policy in this area: that's another
rat-hole we don't need to explore for now.
The NCC has from time to time registered domain names w
On 30 Jun 2015, at 15:25, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> There's no policy requirement, but it's good practice for the NCC to
> consult with the community for something like this. It keeps one side
> honest and the other side well-informed.
Indeed.
> FWIW, I'm in favour of dropping all the inactive /
On 30/06/2015 13:50, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> The .int - only a very small set of organisations could register one, so
> there’s absolutely no reason to keep it if it’s not being used.
>
> The hyphenated domains - is there any “risk” in dropping them? I
> sincerely doubt it
>
> As for
On 30 Jun 2015, at 8:50, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Looking over that list ..
The .int - only a very small set of organisations could register one,
so there’s absolutely no reason to keep it if it’s not being used.
The only counter reasoning I can think of is that if there's a chance
Looking over that list ..
The .int - only a very small set of organisations could register one, so
there’s absolutely no reason to keep it if it’s not being used.
The hyphenated domains - is there any “risk” in dropping them? I sincerely
doubt it
As for the rest - I’ve no strong feelings eit
Moin!
On 30 Jun 2015, at 14:30, Romeo Zwart wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> The RIPE NCC holds a number of domains besides ripe.net.
>
> Some of these domains were only registered as a "protection"
> mechanism, which was considered good practice at the time.
Is this considered bad practice now? Was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Dear colleagues,
The RIPE NCC holds a number of domains besides ripe.net.
Some of these domains were only registered as a "protection"
mechanism, which was considered good practice at the time.
We now plan to release the following domains, which a
12 matches
Mail list logo
