🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug3.172657.9826@waikato.ac.nz>, john@waikato.ac.nz (John Houlker) writes:
|> In article <BsDyIE.Fz0@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, andy.linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz
|>  (Andy Linton) writes:

some stuff deleted here 

|> > 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.


Let's run this up the flagpole then. If IAC is to be "considered a domain
for a group of organisations" whose function is Antarctic Research then let's
not talk about the New Zealand International Antarctic Centre - it's either
an NZ centre or it's an International Centre - and let's put the base
organisation in as:

	IAC.AQ

and any of the "various organisations based at the IAC in Christchurch that
participate in Antarctic programs" in as:

	XXX.AQ or XXX.IAC.AQ

We have more prospect of getting US and other organisations to do the right
thing with the '.AQ' domain if we go this way.

(Gruops at the IAC also might then gets lots of mail from people saying "Are you
in Antarctica, I need to talk to ..." and do something about persuading MERT to
fund the link down there.)