Given the tremendous demand for short, "sexy" domain names, and that we only
have 70,000 companies in .COM out of 25,000,000 mid-to-large-sized businesses
in the United States, we are indeed fast approaching the point where domain
names will no longer map meaningfully to the objects they identify. Something
like .US which is currently for individuals will have an even tougher time
growing to 200,000,000+ individuals.
So far I'm headed toward "Label.Hash.COM.US" where Label is something
like SUN or IBM or VIX, Hash is a variable sized token generated from Label
and intended to keep the single .COM.US domain from growing into a monster.
"Label.Hash.COM.State.US" is also a possibility, that's up to the USDOMREG.
Closing .COM and moving to this new structure is going to be a huge
undertaking, of course.
This idea (that domains can get too large) was the idea behind the bigzone
mailing list. John Romkey was the first (to my knowledge) to propose a
series of psudo-random labels to create enough heirarchy to support the size
and scope of wide scale deployment.
Other efforts, to improve the information packing density of the existing
labels (wildcards within labels, hierarchy to the right of root) tend to
lead to madness.
Perhaps it is time to resurect the bigz list for active discussion on how
identify what a big zone really is
how to split a big zone
I'm not convinced that .COM needs closing... yet.