From: smd@uunet.ca (Sean Doran)
Subject: Re: can.domain
Organization: UUNET Canada
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:25:55 GMT
Distribution: can

lyndon@unbc.edu (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:

>Given the highly political nature of the *current* .ca old boys club,
>how could an openly elected group be any *worse* ???

>No.  If we're going to start clean we have to start clean.  Off with their
>heads and let's start over from scratch.

I am not quite sure I agree completely.  The important thing to
remember is that the CA-DOM process has the potential to be more
efficient than the NIC, but that right now it isn't.  It is easier and
faster to get a domain registered in COM, EDU, NET or ORG than it is
to get one in CA.

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.

The CA-DOM organization also involves people who know what they are
doing on a technical level, and generally these are the people who are
responsible for making the domain work on various networks in Canada.

From a technical perspective, as someone who has some influence in the
choice of various domains, I rate CA as a good choice for people who
want their mail to get to them from all sorts of byzantine networks.
This is to the credit of John Demco, and the other people who have
served on the committee in the past, and those who are on it now.

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

I'm sure everone has seen various editorial cartoons along the lines of
"There are no great individuals, only great committees".  That
sentiment is balderdash.  Committees often spend too much time
bickering about minor details, to the point that little if anything
gets done.  To suggest that the IETF working group model is
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.

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.  

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).

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.

Now, who should the czar be?  Obviously it should be someone who has
had a good deal of experience with the unfriendly task of running
a top-level-domain in the DNS.  It should also be someone with a
degree of background in domain-naming and the other policy issues the
czar will run into from time to time.  She or he should also be able
and willing to devote the time to doing the boring administrative
chores (or the automation thereof), and not have an enormous ego or
set of political goals.  

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. 

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
someone (or some committee) that is elected somehow will get things
done right.  The technical issues aren't that simple, no matter how
much we wish they were, and they take alot of time to get used to.
Moreover, I have my doubts that electing a person or a group of people
will make anything more efficient or straightforward.  Therefore, I do
not like the idea of electing someone to take over the CA domain, even
if we _could_ agree about who should be the electors and who could be
a candidate.

I will agree, however, that change is needed.  Let's not cut off
everyone's head in a reign of terror, and leave ourselves with nobody
who can (or who might be willing to) get things working.

	Sean.
Newsgroups: can.domain