🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BsDxqq.Ery@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, mark@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Mark Davies)
 writes:

> |> This follows the approach we have had so far in that entries within
> |> NZ (with the exception of ARCHIE.NZ) represent groupings of
> |> particular common types (here we have the "Antarctic Research
> |> Organisation" type, which might be compared with CRI.NZ).
~
> Bad example.  I, and most people I've talked to on the subject think the
> cri.nz domain is a bad piece of naming.  I actually think this IAC proposal
> has a lot more validity than cri.nz ever did.

[and other interesting bits]

In article <BsDyIE.Fz0@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, andy.linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz
 (Andy Linton) writes:

> |>          Should we create - as discussed earlier - something like a
> |> domain for research organisations (more general than CRI.NZ) and
> |> use this to locate the IAC?   The research domain names suggested
> |> before included such as RI.NZ, RES.NZ, so we would get something like:
> |> 
> |> 	IAC.RES.NZ
> 
> Well I never saw discussion on this! Where was it discussed?
> 
> It would have been nice to see a discussion like this before we had CRI.NZ
> foisted on us.

From memory it was discussed in nz.netstatus - was it a mail only
exchange instead?  Certainly I recall comments from Michael Newbery
at VUW for example.  The idea of a RI.NZ or similar was put forward
as a suitable location for the CRIs; in the end the CRI computer
network people expressed a strong preference for CRI.NZ.

> I think we've already got a perfectly good set of domains to
> cover both cases. The CRI's are commercial organisations and are defined as such
> - they should have gone in CO.NZ.
~
~
> If we go down this track you can throw away the secondary level domains, such as
> AC.NZ, CO.NZ etc., as you will get requests from organisations that feel they
> don't quite fit in. e.g.
> 
> 	At VUW we undertake research, have commercial interests and we teach.
> 	We're special and we should be:
> 
> 	VUW.NZ
> 

Note that the IAC is not a single organisation, but a number of
organisations of a common type (at least this is what I'm told).
Personally I much prefer the idea of a grouping into types at the
NZ level, rather than having a flat space, but there may be
differing views on whether we must have some minimal set of
types, or what a `type' can be.

> I had a series of conversations with a guy from Shell Oil a few months ago who
> wanted the name SHELL.NZ set aside. I suggested we had a policy that meant he
> should be SHELL.CO.NZ and he didn't like that too much. I suspect that if we
> go down the IAC.NZ track that we'll find this sort of thing harder. I know I
> won't argue with him about it - I'll just forward a request for SHELL.NZ!

If we are going to stick to domain types rather than move to a flat
space, then asking for SHELL.NZ would mean arguing this is a
multiorganisation domain (as has been argued for the IAC) - I can
imagine this could be based geographically perhaps, so we then have
to ask what the term "organisation" means in this context.

> I would urge you all to think about this hard at this point about this. We might
> get away with this one but one more exception could well spell the end of any
> structure we currently have. I urge the use of:
> 
> 	IAC.ORG.NZ

As stated above, IAC.NZ is not an exception if considered a domain
for a group of organisations, and we allow that the creation of new
domains for organisation types is permitted.  Of course I agree we
do need to think about how NZ should be used, and for example, a
case for restricting NZ domains to some minimal set could be that
defining an organisation is difficult, and for this and perhaps
other reasons defining new domains of organisation types will lead
us inevitably to the extreme case of a flat space.  On the other
hand it could be said that limiting the domains to what we have now
is arbitrary and will somehow miss some important structure we
should have, or at least is much desired and does no serious harm.

Thanks
John