Xref: utzoo news.groups:18189 news.admin:8398
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari!ames!saturn!xanthian
From: xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: A USENet domain (was Re: Domain Charters)
Summary: Make "usenet" a top level domain, similar to the other nets.
Message-ID: <11012@saturn.ADS.COM>
Date: 26 Feb 90 10:28:42 GMT
References: <_.W1K12xds8@ficc.uu.net> <1990Feb23.202301.3363@everexn.uucp> <38951@apple.Apple.COM>
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 960-7300
Lines: 56

In article <38951@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
[...]

>If you want formal charters, the best thing to do would be to
>seriously consider a Great Renaming, where the entire namespace is
>rethought and stuff Put In Its Place. That'll be a way to figure out
>what domains need to exist, how to define them and what belongs in
>them, and would be the only want to get a consensus opinion on
>things. Then all we'd need to do is implement it.

I'm not at all sure how important this is, but I had noticed a great
lack of symmetry in the current newsgroup namespace which might lend a
small impetus to another Great Renaming.

Once upon a time, there was USENet, standing in splendid isolation,
and all was well with the naming heirarchy.  Now, however, we have
alt, bionet, biz, clari, pubnet, and vmsnet, at least, sharing a
namespace with the USENet domains, and accessible at a typical site
from the same newsreading software in a single session.

Is it perhaps time to exhibit an overdue bit of humility, to recognize
the current realities, and to subsume the USENet domains under a
single, network identifying toplevel name (maybe "usenet"), just to
help folks sort out which newsgroups actually fall under the USENet
newsgroup rules, as opposed to the groups falling under rules for
other networks?

If so, this would provide the chance to sort out the hobby, academic,
insult, diatribe, commercial, chat, cultural, interpersonal, humor,
and other domains of interest once again.  I have to admit, I think
the process will be much more difficult without the recognized
"backbone cabel" that provided leadership for the last Great Renaming.
To replace that lack, I would suggest, if the process begins, that it
take place in a moderated newsgroup ruled by an ironhanded despot who
only posts digests of ANONYMOUS arguments (to avoid introducing
existing net.animosities into the discussion process).

That much work probably requires a nearly full time individual, which
may require funding by either a government agency or a concerned
organization; we should probably also grant that individual before we
start final authority to make all group placement/naming decisions.
[I doubt the ability to do such a task by consensus, in this or any
other group.  Design by committee is a known losing mechanism.]  I
would suggest an academic type with a specialization in library
science or some similar practical knowledge organizing discipline, if
one is available and willing.

Almost any naming done by any single mind would be an improvement over
the current hodgepodge, and we should recognize before beginning that
the result will have, for each of us, namings and group placements
that we would gladly go to the ramparts to defeat, yet must accept to
achieve a finished renaming most of which suits us.

--
xanthian@ads.com xanthian@well.sf.ca.us (Kent Paul Dolan)
Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'.