[Systems] Who should legally hold sugarlabs domains/SSL certs, and who should decide who should hold them?

[Chris Leonard]

On Question One (Who should decide if the domains be held by
Conservancy in Conservancy's Gandi account.)  I'd like to propose that
Bernie continue his due diligence on the technical and logistic
aspects of such a change and provide a recommendation to the SLOBS
list when he feels he has sufficient information to make a call.  I
think we could/should rubber-stamp his suggestion by e-mail in short
order.

On Question Two (Who should be the legal owner of the domains?) I
would propose that for pragmatic reasons already mentioned it may make
sense for the domain "owner of record" to be the SFC (although as I
said, I'm open to counter-argument).  This question could also be
voted on by the SLOBS via e-mail when Bernie finalizes a technical
recommendation.

Note:

I am fully committed to open process in the conduct of Sugar Labs
business, but in this case I think the following circumstances apply.

1) This just seems unlikely to draw significant input from the
community in an on-line SLOBS meeting via IRC.

2) This is exactly the sort of technical and operational administrivia
that the SLOBs have been elected to address on behalf of the
community.

3 ) This will be announced to the community in due course and
ex-post-facto input invited.

4) In the unlikely event that community input causes the SLOBs to
reconsider the actions taken, none of these steps are irreversible or
would result in "sunk costs", no harm, no foul.

5) We really don't need a community referendum on our DNS lookup
tables or certificate supplier, openness in this case requires
notification, not necessarily solicitation of votes.

Those are just my thoughts.

cjl