🚀 go-pugleaf

I submitted the first (as far as I know) CA subdomain registration
application for an individual (ie, "residential person") today.

Up until now, the CA Registrar has only accepted registration of
"organizations".  With this in mind, I stated the following to the
CA Domain Committee:

eah} Our new "Introduction to the CA domain for Canada" file explicitly
eah} lists "residential person" in the graphic representation of the
eah} CA namespace hierarchy.  Our text states:
eah} 
eah} "The CA domain is structured according to Canadian political geography
eah} "with entities registered at appropriate levels:
eah} 	[...]
eah} "- It is expected that fourth-level subdomains will be used for
eah} "  individuals too although this has not been decided yet.
eah} 
eah} I suggest that there is nothing to be gained by delaying approval
eah} of applications from individuals properly placed within .CA, nor
eah} by insisting that only "organizations" may register.  I'd much
eah} rather see this application, now that we have one, registered
eah} properly, than to force the applicant to invent an organization.

As the application was for mohan.ottawa.on.ca, this lead to a discussion
of exactly what would be appropriate for the "orgname" portion of the
subdomain name, bearing in mind that there might indeed be more than
a single "mohan" in a given city, and extending the argument:

eah2} We _could_ allow the first "mohan" in Ottawa to be simply
eah2} mohan.ottawa.on.ca, and then register subsequent Mohan's accordingly,
eah2} but that may very well lead to mohan.ottawa.on.ca getting all mail
eah2} for all mohan's by user error.  This will be an even greater problem
eah2} when we register "john.toronto.on.ca", and the problem will even extend
eah2} to "john_smith.toronto.on.ca".  Then what do we do?  I certainly don't
eah2} want to go to an individual.street.locality.province.ca convention, as
eah2} people do move around, but we will have to establish some sort of
eah2} working convention to address this issue; something to uniquely
eah2} identify individuals.  I don't think the government would allow us
eah2} to use SIN numbers, I remember hearing a long time ago that asking
eah2} for such is illegal unless you're part of the government, which
eah2} the CA Registrar and committee aren't.  Do we simply number them
eah2} ourselves (I hate using numbers as ID), but am at somewhat of a
eah2} loss for better ideas.

This matter will have to be decided in the very near future as we _do_
want to approve the first "individual" application without undue delay,
at least so it seems at this point.

What opinions does the Canadian networking community hold on this issue?

                --ed            (Ed Hew)
--
        Canadian UUCP Map Coordinator           <path@cs.toronto.edu>
   ==>  UUCP liason to .CA Domain Registry	<registry@cs.toronto.edu>
        XeniTec Consulting Services             <edhew@xenitec.on.ca>