US Domain -- County Delegations

Mon Jul 31 19:20:13 UTC 1995

On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, George Herbert wrote:

> 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

On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, George Herbert wrote:

> 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 at crl.com 
>   KD6WUQ    Unix / Internet Consultant    
>       http://www.crl.com/~gherbert        
> 
> 

Interpath Hostmaster                    []   hostmaster at interpath.net
                                        []       919-890-6305