edfang at edfang at
Mon Apr 22 23:06:24 UTC 1996

Why limit to companies with 200+ hosts. You open yourself to much 
more trouble (read legal) if this was the case.  If you just said 
everybody had to take a domain under your balanced tree etc then you could project some sort of fairness to the whole 
idea. Nobody could really complain about getting unfair treatment, 
there are no openings for discussion.  Names would be delegated in 
the slots that had openings. 

I don't think you could get this to fly with the current nameholders, 
but an interesting concept nonetheless.


> Why not to restrict first-level domains to companies
> which can demonstrate that they have 1000+ hosts?
> Companies with 200+ hosts then should use .A.COM -- .Z.COM
> (i know, some of them are taken, but that can be fixed).
> Smaller companies should use .xx.COM (and xx is NOT choosen
> by the companies -- it is just the random seed and/or
> registry ID).

> That kind of defeats the "menmonic" value of names but
> still beats telephone numbers (and then, what kind of
> mnemonic can be used to distinguish between thousands of
> nearly identical small businesses?)
> --vadim

More information about the NANOG mailing list