RIPE NCC domain registrations
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC holds a number of domains besides ripe.net. Some of these domains were only registered as a "protection" mechanism, which was considered good practice at the time. We now plan to release the following domains, which are not being actively used by the RIPE NCC: ripe-ncc.org ripe-ncc.com ripe-ncc.net ripencc.com ripencc.net ripencc.org ripelabs.net ripen.cc ripe.int ipv6roadshow.com ipv6roadshow.net ipv6roadshow.org Depending on the registration expiration date of each of these domains, we will either let the domain expire or take steps to actively delete it. The following domains held by the RIPE NCC are still in use. We have no immediate plans to release any of these domains: ripe.net enumdata.org enog.org nro.net nro.org ipv6eyechart.net ipv6actnow.org ipv6actnow.com ipv6actnow.net Please let us know within two weeks if you have any comments or feedback about this process. Kind regards, Romeo Zwart -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVkovvAAoJEKnY9vIUvfudPR8P/0PEnpvz435gKM941vSf7j3U rqYcnBD54MQBiw8MaUA4Q+UTjw/DsHsFw/EISXt1EFITp2ACrLBesQbMWWtr/V3Q ylz1DRDiRI8JKWuKvoAbCKcdwpbeH6C3JhNl4wlSvmNUq47EFF7la24XvpiuyrBo 1vf8K9q0I9HfBixXbbqfipd0VGlvw9RKejpTRhUwJ90kR5VytvJMcR+COJlBr/83 q9EHrXmk8fZn8rp/pakygITSxny+psvaaJY9HxffQJM23iClSPz11kwGmFFvhYFf JIxDvzbVtYPZHpZCKK20UWisXcrQsu7XdVNV4zechKzf+H7kHR5O+ODGsKE6w91A G1bWOlqqC9jLDIaq8pTKLV1kwtyM/1Ng2ZA8yG9Xk1RHnKkDCVBLZiShyjbd/MWs xwdqs9JKXVwKjaIBJq5p64pR3i94rHdn9qepfNgXQ8bbtEy+xHtlBpLce0jMoHKA y87Z7a82NyZymose6xfPIdF+Jz6FqDKyOxk3MwjC9b3XeEGbh9WpvzvSCn1b7ZIx gD3fcFC7xgQxTqo898CiZjDrxSwE7MXG0rSfZ3jDH9prrPyK6L4MpMalISqW5vvK Vu6m/vQQSIb4qamc1BaGBtLCroEQJP94Cs3OvwEg4mAKpmysfn9ZMyxnjdsDHSsw YnZLUwD60vPiurov+Am0 =4MS6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Moin! On 30 Jun 2015, at 14:30, Romeo Zwart wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The RIPE NCC holds a number of domains besides ripe.net.
Some of these domains were only registered as a "protection" mechanism, which was considered good practice at the time. Is this considered bad practice now? Was there a policy change I missed?
We now plan to release the following domains, which are not being actively used by the RIPE NCC:
ripe-ncc.org ripe-ncc.com ripe-ncc.net ripencc.com ripencc.net ripencc.org ripelabs.net ripen.cc ripe.int ipv6roadshow.com ipv6roadshow.net ipv6roadshow.org So we are talking about 12 domains. What is the hassle of keeping them? I'm pretty "confident" the new owners won't do as good things with it as the RIPE NCC.
I would like to see more reasoning behind why you don't want to serve these 12 domains any longer. So long -Ralf
Looking over that list .. The .int - only a very small set of organisations could register one, so there’s absolutely no reason to keep it if it’s not being used. The hyphenated domains - is there any “risk” in dropping them? I sincerely doubt it As for the rest - I’ve no strong feelings either way, but holding on to a bunch of domains “just because” is pointless And I wasn’t even aware that RIPE would even need to consult with the community or members on this kind of administrative matter . . Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 30/06/2015 13:41, "dns-wg on behalf of Ralf Weber" <dns-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of dns@fl1ger.de> wrote:
Moin!
On 30 Jun 2015, at 14:30, Romeo Zwart wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The RIPE NCC holds a number of domains besides ripe.net.
Some of these domains were only registered as a "protection" mechanism, which was considered good practice at the time. Is this considered bad practice now? Was there a policy change I missed?
We now plan to release the following domains, which are not being actively used by the RIPE NCC:
ripe-ncc.org ripe-ncc.com ripe-ncc.net ripencc.com ripencc.net ripencc.org ripelabs.net ripen.cc ripe.int ipv6roadshow.com ipv6roadshow.net ipv6roadshow.org So we are talking about 12 domains. What is the hassle of keeping them? I'm pretty "confident" the new owners won't do as good things with it as the RIPE NCC.
I would like to see more reasoning behind why you don't want to serve these 12 domains any longer.
So long -Ralf
On 30 Jun 2015, at 8:50, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Looking over that list ..
The .int - only a very small set of organisations could register one, so there’s absolutely no reason to keep it if it’s not being used.
The only counter reasoning I can think of is that if there's a chance it might be useful to use it in the future, it's probably less effort to keep it than to go through the paperwork again. INT domains are not three-click purchases; they're handled through (currently) manual processing at the IANA. (Maybe there's some measurement of the performance of delegations through the INT servers that would be easier to handle with control over a child zone than without? Seems plausible, but a bit of a stretch.)
The hyphenated domains - is there any “risk” in dropping them? I sincerely doubt it
As for the rest - I’ve no strong feelings either way, but holding on to a bunch of domains “just because” is pointless
I agree.
And I wasn’t even aware that RIPE would even need to consult with the community or members on this kind of administrative matter . .
Me neither, but I certainly feel warm and fuzzy inside now that I have been consulted. Could be something I ate, though. Joe
On 30/06/2015 13:50, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
The .int - only a very small set of organisations could register one, so there’s absolutely no reason to keep it if it’s not being used.
The hyphenated domains - is there any “risk” in dropping them? I sincerely doubt it
As for the rest - I’ve no strong feelings either way, but holding on to a bunch of domains “just because” is pointless
And I wasn’t even aware that RIPE would even need to consult with the community or members on this kind of administrative matter . .
There's no policy requirement, but it's good practice for the NCC to consult with the community for something like this. It keeps one side honest and the other side well-informed. FWIW, I'm in favour of dropping all the inactive / registration protection domains. There are no compelling reasons to keep any of them. Nick
On 30 Jun 2015, at 15:25, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
There's no policy requirement, but it's good practice for the NCC to consult with the community for something like this. It keeps one side honest and the other side well-informed.
Indeed.
FWIW, I'm in favour of dropping all the inactive / registration protection domains. There are no compelling reasons to keep any of them.
No hats... <AOL Mode>Me too!</AOL Mode> IMO the domain names Romeo's list are long overdue for removal. I strongly support their orderly and timely removal.
On 30 Jun 2015, at 13:41, Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> wrote:
Is this considered bad practice now? Was there a policy change I missed?
Hi Ralf. AFAICT there has never been any policy in this area: that's another rat-hole we don't need to explore for now. The NCC has from time to time registered domain names which were felt to be either a good idea or potentially useful at some point. Sometimes those choices have in hindsight turned out to be misguided. For others the domain names have long outlived their usefulness. So it's reasonable for the NCC to do some housekeeping and get rid of unwanted or unneeded cruft. It's good operational practice. Consulting the WG about that is also to be welcomed, even though the WG should not micro-manage operational matters. Romeo's saying "Here are some domains that deserve to die. Any objections?". If you or anyone else has objections to this approach, please say so and give good reason(s) for your PoV.
We now plan to release the following domains, which are not being actively used by the RIPE NCC:
ripe-ncc.org ripe-ncc.com ripe-ncc.net ripencc.com ripencc.net ripencc.org ripelabs.net ripen.cc ripe.int ipv6roadshow.com ipv6roadshow.net ipv6roadshow.org So we are talking about 12 domains. What is the hassle of keeping them?
Adding cruft for cruft's sake creates needless hassles and overhead. We should all be wary about asking the NCC to make open-ended commitments and at the very least review those sorts of requests/decisions from time to time. From that perspective, getting a sense from the WG about these domain names is a good thing.
I'm pretty "confident" the new owners won't do as good things with it as the RIPE NCC.
Who cares? If the domains no longer serve any useful purpose or have no worthwhile affiliation with the NCC or the RIPE community, there seems to be little point in keeping them. Or as was discussed a few months ago, there would be no point rolling over their DLV keys. Since DLV is going away, that may well be the catalyst to give some of these crufty domains a one-way ticket to Dignitas. Holding on to these domains and continuing to maintain them "just because" seems unwise. ICANN already has ripe.<gTLD> on a reserved list so there is no chance of them going to an impostor. Personally speaking, I do not like open-ended commitments which are just allowed to drift. In this case, nobody appears to be sure why these domains need to exist any more or have a good reason to hold on to them. Romeo's asking the WG if there are good reasons, just in case there are factors which have been overlooked. If anyone knows of such considerations, please speak up.
So we are talking about 12 domains. What is the hassle of keeping them?
Adding cruft for cruft's sake creates needless hassles and overhead. We should all be wary about asking the NCC to make open-ended commitments and at the very least review those sorts of requests/decisions from time to time. From that perspective, getting a sense from the WG about these domain names is a good thing. That is a good argument. I like clean systems, we just have to weigh it against the effort and the possible damages. Running a couple of more domains doesn't seem like a big burden to me, a lot of people on this
I'm pretty "confident" the new owners won't do as good things with it as the RIPE NCC.
Who cares? If the domains no longer serve any useful purpose or have no worthwhile affiliation with the NCC or the RIPE community, there seems to be little point in keeping them. Or as was discussed a few months ago, there would be no point rolling over their DLV keys. Since DLV is going away, that may well be the catalyst to give some of these crufty domains a one-way ticket to Dignitas. I don't care about DLV as you know, but I am pretty sure these will be used in abuse going forward if the RIPE NCC releases them. The RIPE NCC name has some authority when it comes to IPv4 addresses.... It seems
Moin! On 30 Jun 2015, at 16:41, Jim Reid wrote: list host thousands or millions of domains. that people are not concerned about that and that's fine with me. I might just be overly paranoid, and have certain opinions on these domain and IPv4 traders.
Holding on to these domains and continuing to maintain them "just because" seems unwise. ICANN already has ripe.<gTLD> on a reserved list so there is no chance of them going to an impostor. ripen.*, but not ripe(-)ncc.*. Will be interesting to see what happens to them.
Personally speaking, I do not like open-ended commitments which are just allowed to drift. In this case, nobody appears to be sure why these domains need to exist any more or have a good reason to hold on to them. Romeo's asking the WG if there are good reasons, just in case there are factors which have been overlooked. If anyone knows of such considerations, please speak up. I did. Do whatever you want with it. If there are more people who think the NCC should drop them I'm a good democrat ;-).
So long -Ralf
On 30 Jun 2015, at 17:28, Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> wrote:
Holding on to these domains and continuing to maintain them "just because" seems unwise. ICANN already has ripe.<gTLD> on a reserved list so there is no chance of them going to an impostor. ripen.*, but not ripe(-)ncc.*. Will be interesting to see what happens to them.
Perhaps in the same sense that watching paint dry can turn out to be interesting... :-) FWIW lookups of ripe-ncc.$GTLD for some of the most popular gTLDs after .com, .net and .org return NXDOMAIN. [I got bored after making a handful of queries and couldn't be bothered checking every gTLD.] Since nobody else has snapped up these Really Juicy Names yet, it seems reasonable to assume this isn't going to happen any time soon. OTOH this discussion might well prompt the domain name industry's bottom feeders to do just that. :-)
Hi, </hatless><shed color=blk/> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:30:39PM +0200, Romeo Zwart wrote:
Some of these domains were only registered as a "protection" mechanism, which was considered good practice at the time.
and probably still is? There's probably no actual value in keeping them for a use, but once they are relaesed, they might be "parked' in shady places of town. So unless the internal procedural cost is going to hurt - just keep'em.
ripe.int
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. -Peter
On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:53, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> 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.
On Jun 30, 2015 8:16 PM, "Jim Reid" <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:53, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> 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!
Totally agree. The ripe.int domain comes from the time of ip6.int (another bad idea) and the perceived need of alternatives to arpa (for the wrong reasons). The sooner this gets dropped the better. Joao
On 30 Jun 2015, at 20:16, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:53, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> 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.
participants (9)
-
Jim Reid -
Job Snijders -
Joe Abley -
João Damas -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Nick Hilliard -
Peter Koch -
Ralf Weber -
Romeo Zwart