On Jun 30, 2015 8:16 PM, "Jim Reid" <<a href="mailto:jim@rfc1035.com">jim@rfc1035.com</a>> wrote: > > On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:53, Peter Koch <<a href="mailto:pk@DENIC.DE">pk@DENIC.DE</a>> wrote: > > > This is probably an exception for the lack of a drop catching risk, > > but keeping the domain to maintain a stake in the INT domain > > might be OK. > > That is a remarkably bad idea. The .int domain's supposed to be for international treaty organisations. The NCC is not one. There is no reason why it should "maintain a stake in the INT domain". It simply shouldn't have a stake in this at all. If anything the NCC should be running away from .int as fast as is humanly possible. +1, if we dont need it, get rid of it!