> I’d appreciate it if more members of the WG spoke up.
I am very pleased with both candidates nominated so far. I would be
happy to see either Ralf or Shane serve as chair.
-- Sam
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:27:51PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
> At present, only two names have emerged: Ralf Weber and Shane
> Kerr. More choices would be welcomed. So far, there have only been a
> few statements of support on the list for both Ralf and Shane. More
> voices of support would strengthen
Dear colleagues,
In July we published a Request for Proposals (RfP) for a trusted third
party to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC's zones:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2016-July/003303.html
Following our announcement, we received three final proposals by the
concl
Hi Romeo & NCC DNS team -
first of all, congrats to the addition of resilience to the NCC's DNS
services! Good to have this aboard these days, I (unfortunately have to)
think...
On 18.10.2016 10:54, Romeo Zwart wrote:
> [...]
>
> The proposal submitted by VeriSign Sàrl (“Verisign”) was the best
> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:09, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
>
> in the light of transparency, will resp. can the contract be disclosed?
>
> If not, is it a contract (draft) that has been put on the table by the
> NCC? Or, vice versa, VeriSign's standard contract for such services? Or
> rather - as a r
> On 18 Oct 2016, at 09:54, Romeo Zwart wrote:
>
> The proposal submitted by VeriSign Sàrl (“Verisign”) was the best fit.
> We subsequently signed a contract with Verisign, which comes into effect
> before the end of this year. The contract is for the period of one year,
> with the intention to
On 10/18/16 11:36 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
> The contractual terms are implementation detail and therefore out of scope
> for the WG
> if we have reason to believe the RFP and/or contract was unfair or defective
> in some way.
> The WG must not and can’t (try to) micromanage the NCC’s DNS team.
jim
Hi Jim,
On 18.10.2016 11:36, Jim Reid wrote:
> The contractual terms are implementation detail and therefore out of
> scope for the WG. This also applies to the RFP and NCC’s selection
> procedure.
what other forum you would see fit then for such kind of Q&A?
> The WG should only intervene here
Hi Carsten,
On 10/18/16 1:04 PM, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
what other forum you would see fit then for such kind of Q&A?
ncc services ? or the GM?
cheers,
elvis
Hi Elvis,
On 18.10.2016 12:11, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> On 10/18/16 1:04 PM, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
>> what other forum you would see fit then for such kind of Q&A?
> ncc services ? or the GM?
"NCC Services" I don't know... Wouldn't this WG be rather for services
being rendered *BY* the NCC
On 18 Oct 2016, at 11:04, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> On 18.10.2016 11:36, Jim Reid wrote:
>> The contractual terms are implementation detail and therefore out of
>> scope for the WG. This also applies to the RFP and NCC’s selection
>> procedure.
>
> what other forum you would see
On 18.10.2016 12:27, Jim Reid wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2016, at 11:04, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
>>> [WG micromanaging the NCC’s DNS team]
>>
>> Not that I have attempted this by any means, I think.
>
> I’m glad to hear that Carsten. But I must say you gave me that
> impression by asking for details of
> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:53, Antonio Prado wrote:
>
> besides, I cannot fully understand how this WG could ask the NCC board
> to investigate "if we have reason to believe the rfp was unfair or
> defective in some way" when, actually, you just said "the contractual
> terms are out of scope for th
>> I’d appreciate it if more members of the WG spoke up.
>
> I am very pleased with both candidates nominated so far. I would be
> happy to see either Ralf or Shane serve as chair.
i want pigasus!
All,
Find below the current draft agenda. Apologies for being late.
jaap
DNS WG, Thursday, October 27th 15-16:30, Afternoon Session I
A. Administrative matters
o Welcome
o Scribe selection/introduction
o Jabber selection/introduction
o Micr
15 matches
Mail list logo
