Deletion of .de domain objects
Konstantin Barinov sbernard at infonet.ee
Fri Jun 30 11:45:24 CEST 2000
Ppl, look, why do I need to have in my mailbox this spam about .de domains??? At least in .ee it's of no interest! Stop sending cc:'s to local-ir at ripe.net, move to private! rgds -- Konstantin Barinov, Senior Network Manager INFONET AS, http://infonet.ee, sbr at infonet.ee On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Stephen Burley wrote: > Michael Holzt wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 02:38:12PM +0200, Thorsten Schreiner wrote: > > > I think they want to become a BIG player... but actually can't right > > > > I cannot understand why the DENIC doesn't help funding with one central ripe > > database instead of setting up a own system. The usability and work of the > > ripe database was the best database ever, with automated robot for updates > > within minutes and a very good maintainer scheme. > > That ones easy, it should never have been used for this info RIPE is the rIPe > repository not the domains authority. The only domains that are in there are > the reverse domains for very good reasons. The RIPE DB was seen as an easy > route to a publicly accessable system with minimum effort, the fact these > domains are now going away will take the strain off a system which was never > designed to for this use and so give the RIPE community back the level of > response from the servers/systems the community funded and frankly deserve. > > Regards > Stephen Burley > UUNET EMEA Hostmaster > > > > > > > > I just got response from the denic regarding my questions about future > > updates to handles. As it seems the change of Handles will now only be > > possible for members of the Denic eG, so many smaller providers who aren't > > members, but are buying their domains from another one will have to redirect > > all changes to this member. I treat this as a very brain-damaged system. > > > > In the meanwhile we have Handles with the same key XYZ-RIPE, with different > > contents in RIPE-db and DeNIC-db (not only the missing remarks, but also > > phone and fax, and if someone makes changes to one of the two handles the > > other will keep the old data). > > > > And then the past changes of the DeNIC to set unmaintained Handles under > > their own Maintainer DENIC-P is abusive usage of the ripe database in my > > eyes. They had no permission to change our handles and the change made no > > sense, as the DeNIC won't support maintainers in their own database as > > mentioned above. > > > > Why has this mess had to happen? > > > > -- > > Mit freundlichen Gr|_en / with kind regards > > > > Michael Holzt > >
[ lir-wg Archives ]