North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: oh, for goodness' sake.

  • From: Forrest W. Christian
  • Date: Thu Apr 09 01:10:51 1998

On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> My vote's for NIC.INT.  I'm still searching for the correct RFC on INT
> rules to see if that's appropriate, however.

Personally, I feel that with the new TLD's coming online, IMHO, there's no
reason why one more couldn't be added JUST FOR stuff like RIPE and ARIN
and the internic.  And the Root servers, etc.

Maybe .NIC or .REG or .CORE or .... ?

Set the requirements so that only those organizations providing "core"
internet services, which if break we're all screwed at least somewhat, can
get a delegation under them.

I can see one of the questions on the allocation form:

8) Estimate the number of messages which will be generated on the nanog
list if your existing Domain was placed in hold status.

- Forrest W. Christian ([email protected]) 
iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604
Solutions for your high-tech problems.                  (406)-442-6648