"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 03:07 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>>>But it also leads me to wonder if we have been too literal in
>>>construing the *third level namespace. Is there a functional problem
>>>if www.nma.com was one ownership, and xxx.nma.com was
>>>another? (Each one of course could register whatever space they
>>>needed for their own network, but really, would such a list be bigger
>>>than *two* characters could deal with?)
>>The technology supports this. It is actually often used this way,
>>among suborganizations of an organization. In this case, the
>>organizations sharing nma.com would have to agree on appropriate
>>policies for sharing responsibility for maintaining their respective
>>namespaces.
>Not quite. Look at the headers of this message. MHSC.COM uses four level
>sub-domains. The domain admin determines the architecture of the
>sub-domains. MHSC.NET goes down to five-level domains, with a completely
>different architecture.
What I was suggesting was that in cases where some set of organizations
that share the same trademarked name, and want to use it as a component
of a domain name, they could cooperatively register that name as an SLD.
After that, they would have to decide how the subzones of that zone
would be delegated. I wasn't suggesting that this type of arrangement
is appropriate for everyone or that all should change.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that United Van Lines and United Air
Lines decided to merge and form a new company, the United Corporation.
Assuming united.com was available (it is not), they could very well
set up subdomains of united.com, namely vanlines.united.com and
airlines.united.com. They would no doubt have to do some internal
reorganization, e.g. renaming of hosts that bore the old domain names.
In the absence of a merger, they can still do this, if they find some
arrangement that they find mutually beneficial.
--gregbo
