From: eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew)
Subject: Re: Reserving a sitename under .ca with a "blanket application"
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 03:34:03 GMT

I must preface my comments with the fact that the CA Registrar only
has authority for Canada.  Discussions impacting on international
subdomain registrations of one sort or another are out of place in
can.domain.  People wanting some sort of international scope subdomain
should look at something like .com or .org, as many often do.  Many of
those also register their Canadian hosts somewhere under .CA.  There
is nothing to preclude registration in multiple domains.  Having said
that, one should consider exactly how adminstration of a .CA registered
subdomain can impact on these concerns.  Remember that one's head office
often dictates what goes on _within_ an organization, or for that matter,
an organizations subdomain.

In article <1993Jan2.213523.28582@tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca> timk@tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (Tim Kuehn) writes:
>For example, an organization has offices Winnepeg Manitoba, and Waterloo
>Ontario, among other places. Under a "blanket-application" scheme, when 
>each site comes on-line, all that would need to be done would be for the 
>central administrator to determine a FQDN based on ISO approved abbreviations 
>for the geopolitical area, notify the domain registration committee about 
>the new name, and arrange for an MX-forwarder. For these two sites, this 
>would yield FQDNs of 
>
>	orgname.winnepeg.mb.ca
>	orgname.waterloo.on.ca

According to the current CA domain registration guidelines, you've
just outlined an organization which rightly should be registered
directly under .CA, ie. orgname.ca, as their presence extends beyond
the confines of a single municipality and further beyond the confines
of a single Canadian province.

orgname.ca would want to assume authority for their subdomain and
administer subdomains therein.  This is typically done.

>As I mentioned briefly in "Domain Naming Conventions", I have a client with 
>a national prescence over most of Canada, which is also expanding into the 
>former USSR and Guatemala, and they're just getting into electronic mail 
>via the Internet/USENET. The naming convention that should be used in this 
>new expansion is a bit of a puzzle. Which of the following would be best? 

The client with verifiable national presence in Canada should become
orgname.ca, as above.

>Since they're already comitted to setting up sites in Lviv and Dnepropetrovsk 
>in Ukraina, whatever naming convention is used would needs to be consistent 
>over all sites/countries names are applied to. This would lead to the 
>conclusion of using the following convention:
>
>	orgname.city[.prov].country 	or
>	city[.prov].country.orgname.org
>
>Which leads to
>
>	orgname.city.prov.ca	for Canadian sites, and 

Once you have authority for orgname.ca, you administer your own
subdomain.  How you choose to do so is then your own internal affair.
Obviously you're not going to complicate your own life any more than
_you_ feel you must.

>	orgname.city.ua		for Ukranian sites
>	orgname.city.gtm 	for Guatemalana sites 

Ukrainian sites registered under .ua would fall under whatever Ukrainian
authority derives that privilege from the NIC and it's successors.
Of course, that will only happen once there is such a thing as a .UA
domain; the last time I checked, it was in use, but doesn't really
exist yet, which is why it's such a pain to route to any host
representing itself as foo.something.ua.

>or 
>	city.prov.ca.orgname.org 	for Canadian sites, and 
>	city.ua.orgname.org 		for Ukranian sites
>	city.gtm.orgname.org 		for Guatemalan sites

You'd want to check with the .org people for information on their
"rules".  Again, this is outside the scope of the .CA authority
and the scope of can.domain.

>1) Using the orgname.city[.prov].country form 
>   - makes more sense 
>   - is easier to remember
>   - is consistent over all cities, provinces, and countries this 
>     organization has or will have a prescence in. 
>
>2) Registering under the .ca domain would requires submitting a domain 
>   registration/application for each and every site, with it's attendant 
>   cost in fees and time to put the application together.

Sorry, wrong!  See above.  The Canadian example you outline clearly
belongs registered as orgname.ca with internal subdomain delegation.

>2) The "associate" offices often as not are run by staff or volunteers 
>   who's expertise is *not* with computers or email. Administration 
>   work for these "associate" offices *must* be kept to an *absolute* 
>   minimum.

There are organizations who will gladly provide the appropriate
services for the technically unknowledgeable.  Contact your local
friendly national commercial service provider.

>3) Having a domain under ".org" should make it easier to deal with all 
>   admin, network connections, and forwarding at the central site 
>   responsible for the ".orgname.org" domain.

As long as we're talking about Canada, .orgname.CA accomplishes this.

>4) There wouldn't be the admin headaches or application fees associated 
>   with running an app past a domain  "Czar" or committe each time a new 
>   site was added.

As above.  One single .CA registration.

>5) Using the ".org" would result in having to use a naming convention which 
>   is the exact opposite of the convention used under the ".ca" naming 
>   convention. Such "counter-to-convention" naming practices should be 
>   avoided if at all possible.

Unless I'm mistaken, foo.org has the same authority for their subdomain
as does foo.CA, so I fail to see the distinction.  For that matter, no
one really cares if foo.CA wants to put a POP in Lviv, Ukraine and call
it moia-ukrainska-mashena.ukr.foo.ca, given that it's your subdomain
and the responsibility to ensure that you know what to do with mail
for moia-ukrainska-mashena.ukr.foo.ca is the responsibility of the
foo.ca subdomain administrator.

>While I like the idea of registering the sites under ".ca" in order to get 
>a consistent geo-political naming convention, the possibility of having to 
>submit an application for each and every site makes me lean more in favor 
>of going under ".org", barring an amendable "blanket application" process 
>which would greatly facilitate the assignment of domains for trans-canada 
>and international organizations.

I think we're covered that now.
A single application for foo.CA is all this would require.

                --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