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/[email protected]/
[dns-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Karrenberg
daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Wed Sep 10 16:29:30 CEST 2003
On 10.09 16:48, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 11:36 AM 10-09-03 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > ... > >How would this endoresement be determined? > > Each LIR would be entitled to one ccTLD to be monitored. Most won't need > it. Assuming there are about 50 countries in the RIPE area, and about 3500 > LIRs, I am sure that one can find a LIR to support a ccTLD to be > monitored. That means that the other countries in ARIN/APNIC/LACLIC would > have to fund their own service. Now this *is* simple-minded: The end-game is that we monitor all TLDs because there are less TLDs than RIPE NCC members and there will be some of them intereste in TLDs outside the RIPE region and many of them will be interested in some gTLDs. Next we will get questions about 2nd level domains. Try again. Hint: One might establish a ranking and set a monitoring capacity. Daniel
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]