From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: can.domain
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 10:13:58 GMT

In article <C07r77.4ut@uunet.ca> smd@uunet.ca (Sean Doran) writes:
>lyndon@unbc.edu (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
>
>>No.  If we're going to start clean we have to start clean.  Off with their
>>heads and let's start over from scratch.

Nothing like getting this going with a bang! 

>CA does a number of things right, notably the assurance of proper
>nameservice for anything that has a cooperative Internet forwarder,
>X.400 routing, and a listing in the UUCP maps.  All of these have been
>good political decisions.

Well I wouldn't agree with that. There is currently (unlike the .us or standard
NIC domains) no requirement for having an Internet Domain Name Server
to support your domain. Down south it *is* required. You can't get registered
in .com or .us unless someone is willing to support an MX for you.

I think it would be a good idea to emulate that. Given the number of current
domains and likely growth over the next few years it wouldn't require a great of
work or a large system. Just one that has a reliable connection.

>appropriate for the management of a domain's namespace is silly.  That
>way lies inefficiency and further growth of the NIC-controlled domains
>like COM and ORG.

Explain why. The mechanism seems to work to produce standards for the IETF.
I fail to see why it couldn't work to create a standard for CA-Domain. I agree
that implementation should be controlled by a Czar. But policy should be
created by the users.

>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.
>
>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.   
>
>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).

Yes. But we need a policy statement (i.e. guidelines) that are based on
the users requirements.

>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.

Agreed.

>We could fight for a long time about who qualifies.  Alternatively, we
>could stick with John Demco, who is doing the job well, although I
>think he spends too much time dealing with the committee. 

And not enough time talking to the users.

>Given that two of the members of the committee now represent networks
>which are being wound down next year, I think it's reasonable to
>number the days of the CA-DOM committee as a policy-making body.
>However, there is no reason that the czar couldn't consult various
>people or the general public when a difficult political or technical
>matter crops up.
>
>To shout "off with their heads, let's start over from scratch" begs
>the question of the value of gained experience.  I have no faith that

Well it comes from people who have been waiting for five or six years to
say it. We first started talking about .ca back in 1986 and early 1987.

I do agree I'm not sure that we need to be quite that extreme.

-- 
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.domain