🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BsFo7A.1yt@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, andy.linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz
 (Andy Linton) writes:

[bits deleted]

> 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

I have suggested this to them (and INT); thus far they prefer using
NZ (to retain an NZ flavour) or INT (in which case they've
suggested a further break down to denote the location - as there
are likely to be other such collections of Antarctic research
groups based in other parts of the world).  Once I've had a little more
feedback on the NZ possibilities I'll query the INT maintainers and
ask the namedroppers if there's any problem using a national domain
when not a resident.
 
> 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.)

We can always hope :-).  Yes AQ has appeal but at least the NSF
component of the IAC doesn't seem so keen on it so far, and I'll
need to check its kosher.

John