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/dns-wg@ripe.net/

[dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org

Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] dnsmon / .org
Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Fri Sep 12 15:31:54 CEST 2003

  I fail to see an "obvious", structural relationship between a LIR and
  the parties responsible for the reliable operation of a ccTLD name
  service?

  Wilfried.
  ______________________________________________________________________

>At 11:36 AM 10-09-03 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>>On 10.09 12:18, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>
>> > RIPE NCC should only monitor those ccTLDs that are LIRs or that their LIR
>> > is willing to endorse.   -Hank
>>
>>I like the principle. However ....
>>
>>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.
>
>-Hank
>LIR: il.iucc

Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] dnsmon / .org
Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ dns-wg Archives ]