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: <8710091544.AA29208@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 9-Oct-87 11:44:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: ephemera.8710091544.AA29208
Posted: Fri Oct  9 11:44:42 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Oct-87 11:42:09 EDT
References: <8709172332.AA15132@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> <8709260429.AA22350@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>
Distribution: can
Organization: University of Toronto, AI group
Lines: 49
Checksum: 22757

In article <1528@cognos.UUCP> glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) writes:
# I would like to point out that I was there at the meeting at Usenix. It seems
# to me that there was a number of people there wanting the issue discussed
# more fully on the net, and I don't remember a consensus then to reject that.
# 
# I also recall that there was a suggestion which was accepted, which is to take
# the current proposal, arrived at by whatever group, to the net for a full
# debate.

I thought this suggestion was part of what I mentioned before, a suggestion
that the net reps put together a document and start up discussion in all the
appropriate fora (sp?). The net discussion was supposed to be based on that
background. Since it was nixed, no discussion was initiated.

# Decisions cannot be made on the net, but responsible decisions cannot be made
# without listening to all views, including those of the net. So I don't agree
# that discussions on the net are pointless.

Seeing views on the net isn't pointless. Flaming is.

# >It is a forum for people to vent their views, as some have done.
# 
# Sorry for being sarcastic, but how can you have meaningful discussions without
# different views?

But that's the whole point, we/I *have* access to different views, even in the
absence of discussions on the net.

# that you seem to have just a bit too strong of a personal bias for someone who
# is trying to be representing the uucp net population at large.

Certainly I have a strong personal bias. That is why it is good that I have
other people's opinions and reasoning to support the position I have been
taking with the other net reps in this thing. The stages in the "negotiations"
have been: pushing for our "ideal" (which also happened to be my ideal),
pleading against our worst-case scenario, and now compromising on something
with the underlying features of our "ideal" in terms of namespace breakup etc.,
although it is based in a somewhat different view of the world.
Point is that I've been falling back from the specifics of what people want,
to their underlying reasoning for why they want it that way.
Besides all this, the positions and biases of the other network reps are sure
to (more than) balance out my biases.

Anyway, on wednesday or so next week, I'll be posting a simple proposal for
how the local UUCP network's interface to the CA authority should be (a la the
UUCP "Zone" in the U.S.). You'll all have the opportunity to comment on it then.
Btw, this should be an indication to people that its coming down to the wire...

rayan