[Systems] Who should legally hold sugarlabs domains/SSL certs, and who should decide who should hold them? (was Re: Fwd: Gandi donates large amount of account credit to Conservancy for VPS's, domain registration, and SSL certificates)

Bradley M. Kuhn bkuhn at sfconservancy.org
Wed Aug 1 13:26:52 EDT 2012

Chris Leonard wrote at 09:12 (EDT):
> Speaking for myself, I think the SLOBs would/should entrust domain
> name registrations, certificates and DNS issues to our extremely
> competent (albeit overworked) Infrastructure team, and to Bernie's
> leadership on those issues.

Just to be clear: those details would still be so-handled in any event,
if you decide to have Conservancy be the domain-holder.

What I'm talking about is just the legal holder of the domain being
Conservancy.  We'd only set "Billing Contact" and "Administrative
Contact" to Conservancy -- Bernie and the infrastructure team would
decide "Technical Contact" for the domains.

But, that said, it's not mandatory that a Conservancy project host its
domains with Conservancy -- it's purely a Gandi-specific rule
(apparently) that the SSL certificates Gandi generates be only for
domains where the generating/paying account match the admin contact of
the domain.

The other option is for Sugar to just pay from its funds for SSL certs
(which is what most projects typically did before the donation from
Gandi was received).

I think we may be on the same page, but it seemed your email *might*
have conflated two issues: (a) who should decide if the domains be held
by Conservancy in Conservancy's Gandi account, and (b) who should be the
legal owner of the domains.

Those are two independent questions that I want to be sure you consider
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy

More information about the Systems mailing list