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] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Tue Oct 18 11:36:33 CEST 2016
> On 18 Oct 2016, at 10:09, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de> 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 result of heavy negotiations in smoke filled rooms behind > closed doors ;-) - an amalgam of both? > > Also, how (far) the three final bidders met the RfP requirements would > be interesting. I don't mind if the names of the non-winning two would > be anonymized. Hi Carsten. 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. The WG should only intervene here -- ie by asking the NCC board to investigate -- 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.
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Verisign to provide secondary DNS services for the RIPE NCC’s zones
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]