This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/cooperation-wg@ripe.net/
[cooperation-wg] Any response to the NRO/ASO request to ICANN?
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Any response to the NRO/ASO request to ICANN?
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Any response to the NRO/ASO request to ICANN?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Thu Feb 6 12:39:35 CET 2020
On 6 Feb 2020, at 11:27, Nick Hilliard (INEX) <nick at inex.ie> wrote: > > Can someone point out the bit in this letter which strives for transparency? I'm struggling to find it. I’m struggling to find the bit which makes the sale of PIR a matter for the NRO/ASO. Why is a body representing the *numbering* community getting itself involved in an issue for the *naming* community? I don’t recall seeing much (any?) discussion of the PIR sale on RIPE’s lists. So with little or no bottom-up input I don’t understand how this issue made its way on the ASO/NRO’s agenda. Can somebody explain?
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Any response to the NRO/ASO request to ICANN?
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Any response to the NRO/ASO request to ICANN?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]