Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!utegc!rayan
From: rayan@utegc.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: .bc.ca domain park
Message-ID: <8709260429.AA22350@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>
Date: Sat, 26-Sep-87 00:29:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: ephemera.8709260429.AA22350
Posted: Sat Sep 26 00:29:50 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Sep-87 11:40:15 EDT
References: <8709172332.AA15132@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>
Distribution: can
Organization: University of Toronto, AI group
Lines: 44
Checksum: 09344

In article <1422@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) writes:
# In article <8709172332.AA15132@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> Rayan Zachariassen <rayan> writes:
# >
# >It'd be a bit difficult for Rick to set up a .bc.ca seeing as that
# >a .ca already exists, and he isn't the person responsible for it
# >(John Demco is); and John isn't likely to set up anything until
# >all requirements are clear.
# >
# 
#   This is inconsistant with the expressed wilingness of UUNET to distribute
# to a .bc.ca subdomain.  Perhaps you mean you request he refrain from
# doing so until you get the top-level domain set up?

The original message, from Stuart, implied that Rick would be happy to
set up a .CA, and a .BC.CA under it. I'm pretty sure he said that because
he didn't (doesn't) realize a .CA already has been registered. UUNET
is irrelevant.

As regards your other comments...

#   This is canada, we have a tradition of negotiating things, not
# springing a fait acompli.. 

I think it judicious to clarify and emphasize something: The private
discussion about how to organize .CA has not been going on in a vacuum.
Neither vis-a-vis representation from interested people including those
vocal in this group, nor by ignoring the existence of different sets of
interests and points of view, particularly as expressed by the different
networks. Negotiations in that environment have been going on for a long
(long, ...) time. Early this summer, it was suggested by a group of you
(at Usenix) to take the discussion public on the basis of a joint position
paper from the network reps. This happened to be rejected, partly on the
basis that it would bring us back to square one, and wouldn't accomplish
anything. I don't agree with the former, but I can understand the latter;
arguing on the net (for example) has rarely accomplished anything but
raising temperatures. It is not the best forum to make decisions in. It
is a forum for people to vent their views, as some have done. Don't make
the mistake of assuming those views are all there is to it, nor that the
net is representative of (or even reaches) interested parties.

I think we'll end up with something reasonably acceptable to most people;
try not to prejudge it.

rayan