One thing to keep in mind is that not all of .com is broken;
major country and world wide companies should sensibly have
a short address, we just need an adaptive mechanism to allow
more local companies to come along without losing all usability
within the existing .com structure...
I wouldn't have bothered to bring this up, but someone mentioned
using an intermediate hash on *all* .com's (ibm.49.com), which is a
waste of time. Every extra level of address hurts a bit, and it makes
sense that "really big" companies should have simple .com addresses.
We don't have to retrofit the new mechanism to everyone for consistency's
sake.
george william herbert gherbert@crl.com
KD6WUQ Unix / Internet Consultant
http://www.crl.com/~gherbert
One thing to keep in mind is that not all of .com is broken;
major country and world wide companies should sensibly have
a short address,
I do not think that is so sensible.
One of the things touted about the Internet is that it is a great
equalizer for businesses. Small businesses can compete on a global scale,
and can have an internet presence identical to mega-companies. By causing
a break based solely on "how big are you," I fear a small revolt.
We _REALLY_ try to sell to our customers the idea of using
widget.ral.nc.us, but they _know_ the .com exists, and if we won't give
it to them, they will go elsewhere. Names are everything to businesses.
So we have to give in at times, just to stay in business.
If a change is made, I feel it needs to be applied globally to all, not
just the small businesses.
+mike