Replies:

• Posted By:  Linda Michalowski (lmichalo@cccco.edu)
  Date:  10/28/2003 3:50:33 PM

  The California Community Colleges strongly support this proposal to allow governing bodies to use the .edu domain. The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office was approved in the .edu domain many years ago and most of the 108 collges in the California system have migrated to the .edu since the Category 1 definition was established. As the central office for a system of colleges that meets the current .edu criteria, it would be problematic if we were compelled to use a different domain. Our counterpart entities in other states should have the same ability to be identified with their colleges.
  
  Linda Michalowski
  Interim Vice Chancellor, Student Servies and Special Programs and Director, Communications and Publications
  (916) 445-0102
  lmichalo@cccco.edu

• Posted By:  Morna Foy (morna.foy@wtcsystem.org)
  Date:  10/29/2003 8:22:20 AM

  The Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS) would strongly support modifying the .edu eligibility requirements to include governing bodies of accredited institutions.
  
  The WTCS consists of 16 technical colleges and a system office. Over the past twenty years, we have worked hard to build up our system structure through uniform pricing policies, inter-college transfers, joint curriculum development and shared programming. More recently, the WTCS has created eTech, through which students can take Internet courses at any of the 16 WTCS institutions.
  
  Access to the ".edu" domain has given our colleges a uniform look and Internet address that further facilitates student and parent access. Expanding the .edu eligibility requirements to include governing bodies would clearly identify the WTC System Office (which now uses an ".org" domain) as an education agency and better connect our on-line customers with System Office information and resources.
  
  Thank you for considering modifying the .edu eligibility requirements to include governing bodies. On behalf of our colleges, our business partners, and the 400,000 plus students we serve annually, the Wisconsin Technical College System strongly supports this change.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Morna Foy
  Senior Policy Advisor
  Wisconsin Technical College System

• Posted By:  Lawrence Ray (ray@sctechsystem.com)
  Date:  10/30/2003 9:55:07 AM

  The SC Technical College System supports the change that will allow state and administrative offices to use the .edu domain. Our state office is legislatively charged with coordinating policy and funding for sixteen technical colleges across the state. We believe that having the ability to use this domain will help our state office communicate our role in higher education with lawmakers and policy leaders and assist them in identifying South Carolina's sixteen technical colleges as an important sector of higher education.

• Posted By:  glenn dubois (gdubois@vccs.edu)
  Date:  10/30/2003 11:48:27 AM

  In response to your request for comments, I write in support of the proposal to modify eligibility requirements for system and district offices to acquire "edu" recognition. We have such recognition in Virginia (the Virginia Community College System, per state statute, is one institution) and it has made life a bit easier for us.
  
  Glenn DuBois
  Chancellor
  Virginia Community College system
  

• Posted By:  Paula Myrick Short (pshort@tbr.state.tn.us)
  Date:  10/30/2003 3:06:57 PM

  We fully support this change at the Tennessee Board of Regents.

• Posted By:  Jim Barton (barton@hepc.wvnet.edu)
  Date:  10/30/2003 5:37:46 PM

  I am in overwhelming support of the proposal to allow higher education governing bodies access to .edu domain names. Our agency offers several student-level services on-line, including centralized applications for admission and financial aid management. To date, we have been forced to use .org and .com domain names for these services. This has led to substantial confusion as to the legitimacy and origin of our web sites, given the recent surge in competing for-profit sites hosting the same flavor of content.
  
  Access to .edu domain name registration will give our agency the ability to serve its student and institutional constituents with a universally recognized standard. I thank you in advance for your consideration of this change in policy.
  
  Jim Barton
  Director of Research and Technology
  West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission

• Posted By:  Paul Klepac (paul.klepac@sjeccd.org)
  Date:  11/7/2003 9:55:38 AM

  
  Hello:
  I am in support of a change in the .edu domain_name granting policy to allow Governing Bodies to be allowed to have a .edu domain_name. Some of the valid justifications for this action are that a district office such as SJECCD not only serves two accredited community colleges but administers on-line education. Examples of this are the California Virtual Campus program and WebCT programs. By hosting the education sites for classes that count toward degree programs, students can get a degree at the SJECCD virtual extended campus of the two community colleges (San Jose City College and Evergreen Valley College). Thus by providing the education that counts toward degrees that are directly a part of the two Community Colleges, a Governing Body should be allowed to have an .edu extension.
  
  Paul Klepac
  Director of Information Technology Services and Support
  San Jose/Evergreen Community College District
  (408) 270-6410 Paul.Klepac@sjeccd.org
  
  

  • Posted By:  D Eckert, Military perspective (douglas.eckert@wpafb.af.mil)
    Date:  1/27/2004 4:20:50 PM

    I would have to disagree. First, even though these administrative offices have admin control over the institutions, one could not walk into that particular office [take classes, get tested, whatever] and walk out with a degree [time constraint aside]. This would only confuse the matter more with the edu domain. All it would do is identiry senders of emails from those admin offices as edu, when in fact, they are admin. If this moves ahead, then educause should consider administering a *.admin.edu universally. This would provide the admin sector their edu, and also not mask that they are admin serving the schools. This I would support.
    
    Secondly, "Some of the valid justifications for this action are that a district office such as SJECCD not only serves two accredited community colleges but administers on-line education. Examples of this are the California Virtual Campus program and WebCT programs." ..Excuse me, but last time I checked, WebCT is a private, for profit, commercial company. To suggest that WebCT become WebCT.edu without accreditation by the USDoEd in the state they are operating is a leap backwards. Without the accreditation that other online ventures seek and obtain (Phoenix, Jones, etc) would suggest that Fly-By-Night.edu should also qualify since they could argue to be operating like WebCT (only with fewer lucrative contracts, etc).
    
    Don't do it for administrative purposes. If you want to make another change, then open it up to high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools which actually EDUcate rather than ADMINister programs of education.
    
    It is hard enough to find a school which is flexible enough to accomodate the schedules of our military members. Don't make them sort through more ADMIN stuff just to find out they can't get a degree from 'some district administration office' that happens to have an edu domain.
    
    V/r
    D.

• Posted By:  Randall Thursby (randall.thursby@usg.edu)
  Date:  11/9/2003 6:35:43 PM

  Speaking as the Vice Chancellor for Information and Instructional Technology for the University System of Georgia I believe it is important that the Governing Bodies of post-secondary institutions have the ability to apply for an edu domain. The only limitation I would place on this ability would be if the governing body was not primarily focused on education.

• Posted By:  H. Martin Lancaster (lancaster@ncccc.cc.nc.us)
  Date:  11/25/2003 12:50:05 PM

  Reply from H. Martin Lancaster, President, North Carolina Community College System:
  
  I strongly support this proposed modification of .edu eligibility requirements to include governing bodies as defined. This would allow all central office / governing bodies to use the recognized education domain, .edu, which is currently limited to organizations that had obtained .edu domain names prior to October 29, 2001, and degree granting institutions. It would also allow system offices / governing bodies that have previously arranged for an eligible institution within their system to obtain a .edu domain for their system to continue to use that .edu domain without being non-compliant with the July 25, 2003 amendment to the Cooperative Agreement .
  
  The primary benefits of using the .edu domain name for governing bodies (which would cover central offices), which are enjoyed by those ‘systems’ that have previously obtained .edu domain names, include:
  -- Convenient access to a central source of information about the academic programs and related information of the constituent institutions by potential students, faculty members and staff through the widely recognized .edu domain ‘brand’ which has become the standard for accredited academic institutions.
  -- Convenient access to information about the policies, activities and accomplishments of the governed systems by members of the higher education community and government agencies at the state and federal level, again through the use of the standard domain name.
  
  The requirement that the new category of eligible organizations be limited to entities having “as their principal activity the governance, supervision, or regulation of institutions in Category 1” would clearly ensure that the number of .edu domain names would remain manageable within the scope of EduCause’s contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce.
  
  Since this proposed change in eligibility requirements would extend the benefits that have been available to a significant number of central offices / governing boards to all such entities, and does not appear to entail significant additional work or responsibility for EduCause, there does not appear to be any justification for not making this change.
  
  Extending this benefit to governing boards/system offices will end an unjustified discrimination against those governing boards which did not obtain this domain before EduCause assumed the responsibility for administering the domain. There is no distinction between these governing boards except for the timing of their request. It is grossly unfair for some to have the benefits of this valuable “brand” and others not. At present more than half of the community college governing boards use “edu”, though some of them will lose that domain if they obtained it through cooperation with a degree granting institution which in essence “assigned” their domain to the governing board/system office.

• Posted By:  Linda Michalowski (lmichalo@cccco.edu)
  Date:  12/1/2003 2:17:02 PM

  
  The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office strongly supports the proposed modification to allow college governing entities to use the .edu designation used by their constituent colleges. The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office was approved in the .edu domain many years ago and most of the 108 colleges in the California system have migrated to the .edu since the Category 1 definition was established. As the central office for a system of colleges that meets the current .edu criteria, it would be problematic if we were compelled to use a different domain. Our counterpart entities in other states should have the same ability to be identified with their colleges.
  
  Thank you for considering this change and for inviting comment.
  
  Linda Michalowski
  Interim Vice Chancellor, Student Services and Special Programs
  and Director, Communications and Publications
  Phone:(916) 445-0102
  Fax: (916) 327-8232
  lmichalo@cccco.edu

• Posted By:  George R. Boggs (gboggs@aacc.nche.edu)
  Date:  12/6/2003 3:08:00 PM

  
  I strongly support this proposed modification of .edu eligibility requirements to include governing bodies as defined. This would allow all central offices of multi-college districts and state academic governing bodies to use the recognized higher education domain, .edu, which is currently limited to accredited degree granting institutions and organizations that had obtained .edu domain names prior to October 29, 2001. It would alos allow system offices and governing bodies that have previously arranged for an eligible institution within its system to continue to use that domain without being out of compliance with the July 25, 2003, amendment to the Cooperative Agreement.
  
  The primary benefits of using the .edu domain name for governing bodies (which would cover central offices and which are currently enjoyed by those systems that have previously obtained .edu domain names) include:
  
  ***Convenient access to a central source of information about the academic programs and related information of the constituent institutions by members of the public, potential students, faculty members, and staff through the widely recognized .edu domain ‘brand’ which has become the standard for accredited academic institutions.
  
  ***Convenient access to information about the policies, activities and accomplishments of the governed systems by members of the public, higher education community, and government agencies at the state and federal level, again through the use of the standard higher education domain name.
  
  The requirement that the new category of eligible organizations be limited to entities having “as their principal activity the governance, supervision, or regulation of institutions in Category 1” would clearly ensure that the number of .edu domain names would remain manageable within the scope of EDUCAUSE's contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce.
  
  Since this proposed change in eligibility requirements would extend the benefits that already have been available to a significant number of central offices/governing boards to all such entities, and does not appear to entail significant additional work or responsibility for EDUCAUSE, there does not appear to be any justification for not making this change.
  
  Extending this benefit to governing boards/system offices will end an unjustified discrimination against those governing boards that did not obtain this domain before EDUCAUSE assumed the responsibility for administering the domain. There is no distinction between these governing boards except for the timing of their request. It is grossly unfair for some to have the benefits of this valuable “brand” and others not. At present more than half of the community college governing boards use “.edu”, though some of them will lose that domain if they obtained it through cooperation with a degree granting institution which in essence “assigned” their domain to the governing board/system office.
  
  Thank you for your consideration.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  George R. Boggs
  President and CEO
  American Association of Community Colleges

• Posted By:  Dr. Richard Carpenter (richard.carpenter@wtcsystem.org)
  Date:  12/15/2003 1:05:36 PM

  Dear Educause,
  
  As President of the Wisconsin Technical College System composed of 16 colleges and 46 campuses and serving more than 460,000 students per year, I strongly support the proposed modification of .edu eligibility requirements to include governing bodies (district offices) defined as: "Entities which, based on their administrative, statutory, or constitutional responsibilities, have as their principal activity the governance, supervision, or regulation of institutions." This modification would allow all governing bodies to use the .edu domain currently limited to governing bodies that had obtained .edu domain names prior to October 29, 2001 and degree granting institutions.
  
  I strongly advocate that the .edu domain be made available to all governing bodies as defined by the proposed modification. Granting use of .edu to governing bodies as defined will end an unjustified discrimination against those governing boards which did not obtain this domain before EduCause assumed the responsibility for administering the domain.
  
  Dr. Richard Carpenter
  President
  Wisconsin Technical College System
  Madison, Wisconsin
  608.266.1770

• Posted By:  Henry Eimstad (henry.eimstad@gcccd.net)
  Date:  12/18/2003 3:56:35 PM

  Here are some perspectives on the situation in support of the change.
  
  1. The current arrangement is inequitable. Several multi-college districts have been able to register the .edu suffix while many have not been granted permission. Non-degree granting organizations such as EduCause, the California Community College Chancellor’s Office and others have also have this priveledge.
  2. URLs- District offices serve as system offices for multi-college districts and the use of .net or .cc.ca.us suffixes is confusing for those searching the web and expecting a .edu suffix for an institution of higher education.
  3. E-mail addresses: In multi-college districts typically e-mail is implemented district-wide and usually uses the district office domain name for all e-mail addresses, e.g. name@xccd.cc.ca.us or name@xccd.edu. Because of this our faculty (and students/staff) are not able to use .edu suffixes for their e-mail addresses. This is an issue for many of our faculty as they work with their peers at single college districts, four year schools and others with .edu.
  
  Thanks for your consideration of this request.
  
  Henry

• Posted By:  Jack Raubolt (jraubolt@nocccd.cc.ca.us)
  Date:  12/19/2003 4:37:28 PM

  Governing Boards/District Offices should be allowed use of .edu. From our perspective some of the issues are:
  
  1. The current arrangement is inequitable. Several multi-college districts have been able to register the .edu suffix. Non-degree granting organizations such as EduCause, the California Community College Chancellor's Office and others have also had this priveledge.
  
  2. URLs- District offices serve as system offices for multi-college districts and the use of .net or .cc.ca.us suffixes is confusing for those searching the web and expecting a .edu suffix for an institution of higher education.
  
  3. E-mail addresses: In multi-college districts typically e-mail is implemented district-wide and usually uses the district office domain name for all e-mail addresses, e.g. name@xccd.cc.ca.us or name@xccd.edu. Because of this our faculty (and students/staff) are not able to use .edu suffixes for their e-mail addresses. This is an issue for many of our faculty as they work with their peers at single college districts, four year schools and others with .edu.

• Posted By:  Fred Chow (fred_chow@wvmccd.cc.ca.us)
  Date:  12/22/2003 12:05:50 PM

  We strongly support the proposed change in .edu eligibility requirements to include a Category 2 called “Governing Bodies”. Our Community College District located in the middle of Silicon Valley in Northern California is in great need of a .edu Internet domain. For the following reasons:
  
  1) The E-mail system is provided by the District Information Systems, which results in the naming convention of "@wvmccd.cc.ca.us". This naming convention is confusing to not only our Faculty, but more importantly is confusing to our students. We have a large number of on-line courses and as well as increasing trend of communications between faculty and students via e-mail. It is confusing for students to communicate with our faculty using this long, and confusing E-Mail address naming convention.
  
  2) URLs - Our District offices serves as system offices for multi-college districts and the "@wvmccd.cc.ca.us" suffix is confusing for those searching the web and expecting a ".edu" suffix for an institution of higher education.
  
  3) Finally the existing policy has not been applied consistently. Some California Community College Districts have been allowed to register ".edu" domains, while others (including our District) have not been allowed to register a ".edu" domain. Examples of California Community College Districts who have been allowed to register an ".edu" domain include:
  Coast CCD www.cccd.edu
  Foothill-DeAnza CCD www.fhda.edu
  Los Angeles CCD www.laccd.edu
  Los Rios CCD www.losrios.edu
  
  Thank you for your attention to the important matter.
  
  Fred Chow
  Director, Information Systems
  West Valley - Mission Community College District

• Posted By:  Patrick C. Perry (pperry@cccco.edu)
  Date:  12/23/2003 3:01:27 PM

  The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (administrative headquarters of the largest postsecondary system in the US) would like to strongly express its supprt for the tiered proposal to allow .edu domains to be used by governing bodies. Our system is comprised of 72 individual local governing bodies (districts) and one central governing body; all of these entities that govern the 108 campuses should be allowed to carry forward the .edu domain. In almost all cases, the web services and information systems services of these colleges are performed centrally at the district level; currently, district offices must operate under the .cc.ca.us domain, while the same college websites on the same web servers operate in the .edu domain. It would be simpler from an IT administrative standpoint if all colleges and districts could operate under the same .edu domain.
  
  Patrick C. Perry
  Vice Chancellor of Technology, Research & Information Systems
  California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office

• Posted By:  Victor A. Belinski (vbelinski@vcccd.net)
  Date:  12/24/2003 3:39:26 PM

  There are many reasons that .edu domains are required, not just desired, CCC District Offices.
  
  1. VCCCD District Office supplies e-mail addresses for all 3 Colleges in this multi-college district. Right now the Colleges' Web sites all are .edu but all Faculty have e-mail addresses @vcccd.NET .... this is not acceptable.
  
  2. Student Web Registration services are, of course, hosted by the District Office in a multi-college district. Confusion is the result of Students having to link to a .net or .cc.ca.us domain for on-line services rather than the appropriate .edu domain.
  
  3. Consistency is critical for equity and accessibility for CCCs ... many Distict Offices have .edu already so all Districts should be allowed to follow suit. Even the #$*&@ Getty Museum has a .edu ... check out www.getty.edu

• Posted By:  Alex Preiser (apreiser@ucar.edu)
  Date:  12/29/2003 1:36:38 PM

  The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) favors the proposed modification. However, the new second category of institutions' definition should be altered such that it is defined as "Governing Bodies and Community Facilities." In accordance with this alteration of Category 2, the definition of Category 2 should contain the following text: “Not-for-profit entities which, based on their administrative, statutory, or constitutional responsibilities, have as their principal activity the governance, supervision, or regulation of institutions in category 1, or not-for-profit entities governed by institutions in category 1 and which have as their principal activity the provision of community facilitities to such institutions that maintain an .edu address.”
  
  NCAR as well as other similarly situated not-for-profit entities, much the same as organizations that, as their principal activity, govern, supervise, or regulate the institutions contained in Category 1, exist to serve and to further the goals of the institutions in Category
  1. If the eligibility requirements are to be expanded in order to include entities whose principle activities are to govern, supervise, or
  regulate Category 1 institutions, this expansion should include entities that or are governed by such institutions and exist to serve and further the academic interests of the institutions that maintain an .edu address.

• Posted By:  Dana Quittner (dana.quittner@gcccd.net)
  Date:  1/2/2004 3:15:58 PM

  The Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District strongly supports the proposed change and the creation of a category 2 to include the governing body of individually accredited colleges. While the colleges are able to use .edu, systemwide technology that includes faculty, staff and students does not allow these individuals to use .edu because they are part of the administrative governing entity. It is a confusing situation which will be appropriately clarified with the adoption of the EDUCAUSE proposal. Thank you for bringing it forward.

• Posted By:  George R. Boggs (gboggs@aacc.nche.edu)
  Date:  1/5/2004 2:39:45 PM

  Since I posted my earlier message of strong support of the proposal, I have heard that there has been a separate proposal to add not-for-profit entities governed by institutions in category 1 and which have as their principle activity the provision of community facilities to such institutions the authority to use the .edu internet domain. Without prejudging the merits of this proposed extension, this issue should be considered separately from the proposal currently before EDUCAUSE to add a category 2 consisting of the governing bodies of category 1 institutions.
  
  Thank you for your consideration.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  George R. Boggs
  President and CEO
  American Association of Community Colleges

• Posted By:  David Palinsky (dpalinsk@kccd.cc.ca.us)
  Date:  1/22/2004 6:46:32 PM

  The Kern Community College District fully supports and strongly encourages EDUCAUSE to implement the proposed modification to .edu eligibility requirements such that Governing Bodies could be assigned .edu domains.
  
  Most, if not all, valid reasons for making such a change are cited in the many other responses to the original posting on this topic.
  
  David W. Palinsky
  Director, Information Technology
  Kern Community College District
  Bakersfield, CA

Disclaimer: This forum does not reflect the views of EDUCAUSE. These messages are only the opinion of the poster. The anonymity of the user cannot be guaranteed.