From: eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew)
Subject: Re: can.domain
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 05:32:38 GMT

In article <C07r77.4ut@uunet.ca> smd@uunet.ca (Sean Doran) tosses
out an invitation for someone to present facts I'm sure he's aware
of that just might interest members of the community:

>From a policy standpoint, the CA-DOM is a mess.  I think there's
>enough practical experience to show that a domain is best run by a
>single person -- a dictator or czar if you like.  This domain czar
>should certainly be well known and accountable, both to applicants and
>to network service providers who act on applicants' behalf.

Hopefully someone with greater experience on the committee will correct
any impressions that I may have in error.

Let me clarify how I personally perceive things currently operate in
committee wrt to policy decisions.  Firstly, it's never been any kind
of a secret that John Demco is the CA Registrar, and that's he's highly
respected in terms of his knowledge and technical ability.  Anyone who
has every bothered to ask has had access to this information, but in
my experience, I've only had to answer this question a very few times.

Given the past, current, and future connectivity growth in Canada,
John has seen fit to involve representatives from the various Canadian
networking communities into the CA Domain Committee.  The individuals
in different networks in Canada all have very specific needs and each
has one or more representatives on the committee to try to ensure that
such needs are harmoniously met.  What's become obvious to me over the
last few months is that these individuals have very little information
on who their representatives might be or who decides what and why when
it comes to CA namespace administration.  For purposes of interaction
with the growing number of individuals in the UUCP/USENET community,
Stuart's proposal for can.comain came along at just the right time.

Please be patient.  There a number of very dedicated but very busy
people assembling information and hopefully putting mechanisms in
place to ensure that this community knows what the committee is trying
to do for them and to further ensure that the committee knows how
everyone feels about committee policies.  You've already seen a little
bit of it and I have reason to believe that there will be much, much
more.  For one, it looks very much like I'm going to have to try and
assemble a supplemental FAQ and will gladly accept ideas if anyone
would like to email them to me.  Volunteer assistance from knowledgeable
people foolish enough to devote time they can't afford ...
(insert-bunch-of-^Hs) ...people able and willing to help will always be
gratefully accepted.

>The problem right now is that there really is no czar, as policy is
>apparently being decided by committee.

I'm sure John would prefer being called the Domain Registrar rather
than czar, but in effect he has that authority.  I've found that he
only uses it to guide the odd politically motived argument into a form
reasonable and complimentary to the overall needs of the community.
The committee is there to try and ensure that errors aren't made and
do the work of gathering information that's necessary to ensure good
planning and administration for the CA domain.  All considered, it's
working quite well, but it's easier for me to describe trees, having
lived in this particular forest for a while.

>Efficiency is paramount.  Someone should be able to hand an
>application over to a registrar for CA-DOM, and have the domain nixed
>or approved on a more-or-less same-day basis.  There is no reason why
>subdomains of CA shouldn't have a turn-around-time of about a week or
>so (submission->approval->DNS zone update), which is close to what the
>NIC is managing these days.  While fast turn-around from the committee
>has happened, it isn't the rule, especially for smaller organizations
>and individuals.  

Aside from timing issues, a well designed application is generally
approved within a week.  Delays happen as follows:
  1/    It may take weeks or even months from first inquiry, to receipt
	of an application that can be submitted to committee.  I have
	some inquiries that have been waiting for the applicant to send
	me an application, and of course nothing further happens until
	an application is received by the appropriate liason.  Eventually,
	they do arrive, whenever the applicant wants his registration.
  2/	The liason and/or the syntax checker find deficiencies in the
	application, in which case it's back for yet another round of
	email seeking the required information.  Depending on the
	applicant's sense of urgency and their connectivity, this may
	take anywhere from a few minutes to a few months.
  3/	Once submitted to the committee, a committee member finds
	something blatantly wrong with the application, in which case
	the error must be corrected.
  4/	A committee member finds a defect in the guidelines requiring
	revision before the application that brought about that specific
	set of concerns can be dealt with.  Even with the latest round
	of policy issues, concurrent with the holidays, very few
	applications are delayed.
  5/	Connectivity problems.  The commercial service providers,
	institutions, and professionally administered organizations
	by and large have connectivity issues already dealt with.
	There are occasions where the applicant may not have bothered
	to contact them at all, in which case the application _may_ be
	put on hold until reality resembles what they've sent us.
  6/	Connectivity delays - the applicant doesn't see the notification
	for _days_ after it's sent out, and of don't until they read
	their email.

The majority of applications are registered seven days from the time the
committee sees them.  Time prior to receipt plus time after approval
sometimes may make this seem a lot longer to the applicant.  I know I
certainly feel like I've been dealing with some applications for months!

Things like weekends and the odd holiday do sometimes impact, but even
then, the application is often dealt with during that time frame.  It's
interesting that we've had several applications approved while everyone
else is ignoring their email over Christmas.  I know that I'm likely to
get a flood of replies this first week of January when most people get
back to work.

>Ideally, the CA-DOM process should be this:
>
>1. Network provider (or UUCP liaison or whoever) puts together correct
>   form with a reasonable domain.  This person makes sure that the
>   domain is working, and any local nameservice or mail handling is up
>   and running.  The domain is submitted to the domain czar.

Current practice.  The "domain czar" is also on the committee that
receives the application via mailing list.  Everyone looks at it.

>2. Domain czar approves or disapproves of the form, citing reasons.
>   Ideally, this should be done within a business day or two of
>   receiving the form.   

The committee is allowed 7 days from the receipt of the application
for this process.  Objections and clarifications successfully dealt
with by the liason submitting the application to the committee are
registered on the 8th day.  Anything so wrong as to preclude approval
of an application will delay it until the problem is resolved.

>3. Domain czar arranges to have appropriate DNS records put into the
>   CA domain, and whatever network address/name mapping is appropriate
>   (for the moment this still includes NetNorth and CDNNet).

Current practice.  The CA domain registrar also immediately notifies
the liason of the registration and the liason notifies the registrant.

>If step 2 poses problems, like a name-space conflict or a domain which
>is simply ugly or the information is obviously wrong, the czar should
>simply reject the domain, rather than meditate with the help of a
>committee.  Such problems should be dealt with by the person
>responsible for submitting the form in the first place, or as part of
>a discussion between that person and the czar.  Such a discussion
>would certainly be faster and more likely to be satisfying to all
>parties than a long debate in committee, followed by a formal vote.

This is what happens.  If the committee shoots down an application
I submit for a reason I can't counter, then I take it back to the
applicant, with suggestions, but with a willingness to accept what
the applicant wants just so long as it's workable.  If not, I try
to help the applicant to make it workable.  Once done, it's resubmitted.
If it was something minor, the original application, now ammended,
proceeds and registration happens on the 8th day.

By way of an example, I received an application recently where they
asked for a provincial subdomain registration (within Alberta).  As
it turns out, they are a national organization with a major operation
in Ontario as well and hence should be registered nationally.  I'm
just waiting for them to get back to me with a revised application
to reflect this reality and then we can get it approved within the
7 day period.

Of note, all this happens with essentially no funding.  The small
registration fees that are requested by the liasons are used to
_partly_ defray the cost of the resources physically required to
perform their volunteer duties.  Time, often hours daily, is
volunteered.  It's not like someone was _paying_ a Registrar to
sit and administer the CA domain all day long.  Even if it was a
paying position, I would highly doubt that registrations could, or
should reasonably happen more quickly, lest too many errors be made.
It does take a reasonable amount of time to get things right.

                --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