From: eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew)
Subject: Re: can.domain
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 14:09:37 GMT

In article <384@unbc.edu> lyndon@unbc.edu (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
> eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes:
>
>> Lyndon, are you aware that in addition to many experience voices in
>> the .ca "old boys" club, as you put it, there are quite a few newer
>> committee members?  I was invited to join the CA Domain Committee
>> just this last March, and there have been a number of newer additions
>
>Don't forget that it took over five years for this to happen.

First you complain that there aren't enough fresh representative
voices on the committee, and then you appear to complain because
they're finally being added.  I've even heard it said from other
quarters that the committee is getting too large to be functional,
and there are times when it appears that they just might have a
valid point.

>I'm also aware
>that there are applications currently being held up for questionable reasons
>by some of the incumbent members. Hopefully the new blood will help resolve
>those problems.

You should blame some of us, the "new blood", as the cause for
holding up a handful of recent applications, as discussions on fair
revision of the guidelines do delay the regular activities of the
committee.  Even then, the delayed apps are primarily those relating
to previously unregistered Universities, which would have fallen
directly under .CA by the previous inequitable guidelines, but now
fall under .province.ca as would any other org of similar scope.
Yes, the effort to treat all organizations equally is causing some
pain and disruption.

If we simply scrapped all discussions on how the guidelines might
be more equitable and went back to the pre-Nov 22/92 guidelines,
then there would be nothing to hold things up.  IMHO, the reasons
for the revisions are solid enough to justify the aggravation of
engaging in change.  If this were not the case, we'd likely not
be discussing this in can.domain; there would be no can.domain
newsgroup.

>What does the current membership number, and how many of those people joined
>within the last year?

By my count, there are now 21 committee members.  I don't have
accurate committee member addition info handy, but with the
addition of the two new UUNET Canada representatives to the
committee, I believe the "new blood" count since March would be
on the order of 8 or so new members.  Perhaps someone else on the
committee has been keeping better track of such trivia, and can
confirm or correct this number.

I expect that you'll be able to see for yourself who these people
are when the committee membership list is posted just as soon as all
the members have verified that the information listed for them is
correct and accurate.  I recommended publication of the committee
membership to the committee just prior to the creation of this
newsgroup.  It was generally agreed on a few days ago, and this
process should complete RSN.

                --ed            (Ed Hew)
--
        Canadian UUCP Map Coordinator           <path@cs.toronto.edu>
   ==>  UUCP liason to .CA Domain Registry	<registry@cs.toronto.edu>
        XeniTec Consulting Services             <edhew@xenitec.on.ca>
Newsgroups: can.domain