At Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:22:09 +0000, Jim Reid wrote: > > On 17 Nov 2014, at 15:49, Romeo Zwart <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 3/ RIPE NCC has been assigned ripe.int in the early 2000's. We are > > currently not using ripe.int, other than by redirecting to ripe.net. If > > the community advises the RIPE NCC to request IANA to sign .int, we can > > spend some effort on this, but we'd like to follow up on this separately. > > I am not sure a request IANA to sign .int is worth doing any time > soon. Signing .int will almost certainly be blocked by layer 9+ > issues until long after the dust has settled on the NTIA-IANA > transition. Besides, the few voices on this thread that have > mentioned ripe.int appear to be asking for it to be removed, not for > it to be signed in a signed TLD. I think the WG needs to reach > consensus on what should be done here.
I'm reading that as a call from one of the co-chairs for (more) voices from the WG, so here's mine. Let's have RIPE.INT removed. > > 4/ Ripen.cc is a historical artifact. RIPE NCC is not currently using it > > and we are not planning any future use. Releasing the domain is an > > operational decision that we may take in the future. > > Just kill it! IMO the domain should get removed from DLV as soon as > it is prudent to do so: which probably means immediately. ripen.cc > can die on its renewal date. Though these too should be consensus > decisions for the WG. Let's have RIPEN.CC removed also. > The NCC needs to have a procedure to review its DLV entries -- > report to the WG once a year? Let's have this made part of the reporting routine. > -- and an exit strategy for the > cruft^W names and keys it has there. Let's have this too! ATB Niall
