From: smd@uunet.ca (Sean Doran)
Subject: Re: can.domain
Organization: UUNET Canada
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:43:17 GMT
Distribution: can

sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:

>In article <C07r77.4ut@uunet.ca> smd@uunet.ca (Sean Doran) writes:
>>lyndon@unbc.edu (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:

>You can't get registered in .com or .us unless someone is willing to
>support an MX for you.

The only requirement for registration in .COM is that you provide at
least two nameservers to be listed in the root zone.  These are
often checked for an SOA record these days.  The NIC doesn't care
about MX records or getting mail to work, nor should they.

The US zone requires an MXer to be listed for subdomains that are
directly managed by the US zone coordinators.  They only require a
pair of nameservers to be listed and running for delegated domains
(see RFC 1386, which does some things well, and others badly).

I don't like the idea of "artificial domains -- i.e., ones that won't
work on the Internet because they aren't in the DNS -- any more than
you do, but I do like the idea of domain place-holders being made
available for organizations that are planning on future connectivity.

There are also organizations which, because of geography or politics,
simply cannot find an Internet mail-forwarder.  There is at least one
such subdomain in CA, and mail to them will work from pathalias-based
UUCP-land, at least.  

>Explain why. The mechanism seems to work to produce standards for the IETF.

Have you read any IETF mailing lists lately?  The standards process is
far from quick, and one could argue for hours about how good the
standards produced really are.  

>But policy should be created by the users.

Possibly.  But then we would have to fight about who the users are,
and who among them gets to define policy.  The issues are not simple.

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

Again, the requirements of which users?  A policy statement based on
the needs of UUNET would be different from a policy statement based on
the needs of a small UUCP site, ONet, NetNorth or Wimsey.  Someone has
to take policy decisions at some point.  If we have a committee of
everyone (much like the current system) we could duke it out in
private for eons.  If we involve everyone who reads USENET, we could
duke it out in public for eons, and end up with something much like
news.groups.

My feeling is that public comment is valuable, and being able to get
our needs across to the Czar is a good thing.  However, our needs
should not drive the Czar's activities, nor bind her or him to an
inflexible position that might cause problems for someone else.

Can.domain is perhaps a useful vehicle for public bickering.  A
semipublic/semiprivate mailing list might be useful for some more
detailed (and less heated) discussions about policy.  However, neither
one nor the other should "vote", and neither one nor the other should
be considered a policy-making body.  Policy should be made by the
person who controls the nameservers for the top-level-domain. 

If the policy that person generates is bad, then we know who to blame,
and can work at cutting that person off at the knees ("off with a
head").  Such is responsible government. :)

At the moment, it's difficult to tell whether to blame John Demco as
the coordinator for CA-DOM for various gripes and problems, or the
committee (and certain members of it) for presenting him with policy
decisions he might not have made on his own.  Given the secretiveness
of the process and of the membership of the committee and
mailing-list, it is hardly surprising that people are frustrated.

I have yet to understand why the historical records of the
deliberations of the CA-DOM committee haven't been made public.  Could
it be that some of the members of the committee might be a little
embarassed by some of their comments in the past?  Or is such openness
something they would welcome?

Perhaps we could start off with an explanation (for the benefit of
people who don't know) of how the CA-DOM committee makes decisions,
the draft copy of the new CA-DOM rules, and an introduction (again for
the benefit of people who don't know who they are, which is
practically everyone) of the members of the committee, and the
official observers.  

	Sean.
Newsgroups: can.domain