From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: can.domain
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:13:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.215021.27885@xenitec.on.ca> eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes:
>In article <376@unbc.edu> lyndon@unbc.edu (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
>>eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes:
>>
>>> all within the committee who care to look.
>>
>>And that seems to be the crux of the problem, does it not?

>Further, you'll recall that I've been asked to impliment a bi-
>directionally gated mailing list.  In part, this is to ensure
>that those on the committee living on hosts without direct
>access to news will have no excuse not to participate.
>
>>Perhaps the first posting to can.domain should be the current membership
>>list of the .CA Namespace Cabal.
>
>I personally would like to see this information posted, and would
>support such a request if it appears once can.domain is created.
>As I'm not the keeper of that list, I'm not the one with authority
>to release it, but I know that the party who does have that authority
>will see the request if you post it to can.domain.  I'll certainly

That would be John Demco or demco@cs.ubc.ca. 

>I don't so much believe that the .CA Domain Registry Committee has
>been "hiding", more than that there has been no vehicle to bring
>the back-room discussions to the attention of the community and
>the needs of the community to those in the back-rooms.

My personal hope is that the domain space committee can be managed
in the same way as IETF Working Groups. Participation open to anyone
who is interested. (Perhaps limited to residents of Canada.) Decisions 
by consensus. There is no voting process. It is up to the chairman and
participants to arrive at a solution that satifies all parties. This 
model seems to have produced many workable standards for the IETF.
I don't see why it couldn't work here.

>>Posting new domain registrations to can.domain is a nice publicity
>>stunt,
>
>It's not meant to be any sort of a publicity stunt, but rather as
>_part_ of the information I suggest we should all have readily available.

Well that was my idea. What I'm trying to do is raise public awareness
of both the .CA namespace and some of the controversies associated with
the current "guidelines" for assigning domain addresses within it.

>>gateway, but if we cannot the people making the decisions to PARTICIPATE
>>in useful discussions, then this whole exercise is a waste of bandwidth.

What we need to do is convince the powers to be that public discussion and
consensus is the proper way to do things. This is a good start I think.

>>I will support the creation of can.domain if and *only* if they agree
>>(in this forum) to maintain an ongoing dialog with their "customer base"
>>via the can.domain group and any and all other electronic means.

I think that is a valid request at this point. They should be interested
enough to maintain a dialog. 

>by the committee when you post it in can.domain, but without can.domain
>(or an equivalent non-existent vehicle) you have absolutely no chance
>of being heard, other than by indirect representation through myself

Well we could send email directly to the domain discussion mailing list.
But my understanding is that membership is limited to "by invitation" so
you might not see any resulting dialog. Having can.domain at least gives
us a public forum.

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.com> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,talk.politics.animals