[ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Proposed change of "mnt-lower:" behaviour: procedure and timelines
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): [ncc-services-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Proposed change of "mnt-lower:" behaviour: procedure and timelines
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]