[CWG-Stewardship] Fate of the .INT domain

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 06:30:21PM +0100, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> 
> Because it was an equally bad thing before, but equally not in need of urgent fixing?
> 

Right, that's my point.  There is nothing wrong with a transition plan
that says of int, "Status quo ante, nothing to see here."  Which is I
think what is being suggested.  That doesn't mean I think it should
never be changed, but I don't see why it needs to be linked to this,
any more than I think SLA changes or other not strictly relevant
operational adjustments ought to be included.

Best regards,

A


-- 
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Awkward access to mail.  Please forgive formatting problems.