North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: US Domain -- County Delegations
- From: Curtis Villamizar
- Date: Fri Jul 28 23:01:42 1995
In message <9507281742.AA12717@gw.home.vix.com>, Jerry Scharf writes:
> > Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 00:51:03 -0400
> > From: Curtis Villamizar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Is ibm.nyse.com, dec.nyse, mci.nasdaq.com a problem? This takes the
> > arbitrary decision out of accepting or denying someone access to the
> > .com hierarchy and enforces and already strict naming.
> There are two problems I see with this. There are many companies who are
> privately held, including billion dollar ones. Also, there are companies
> who have certificates traded on more than one trading place (I know of
> Japan/US situations.)
Privately held companies will have to go in the geographic heirarchy.
I don't think this is a major hardship.
It's OK to have two domain names if trading on more than one exchange.
> The more fundamental question is where do you put all the companies that
> you are now forcing out of .com?
Put them in the geographic heirarchy.
Of course the $25k a year to stay in .com might also be an option for
the truly huge and certainly fund some hefty root name servers.