Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!cbnews!tgt
From: tgt@cbnews.ATT.COM (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: How to sign-up a host in the .US Domain.
Message-ID: <694@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 21 Jul 88 12:03:58 GMT
References: <8807141838.0.UUL1.3#948@Fernwood.MPK.CA.US> <3441@palo-alto.DEC.COM> <1096@maynard.BSW.COM> <1477@spdcc.COM> <410190450@nwnexus.WA.COM>
Reply-To: tgt@cbnews.ATT.COM (Tim Thompson)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 42

In article <410190450@nwnexus.WA.COM> edm@nwnexus.WA.COM (Ed Morin) writes:
>In article <1477@spdcc.COM> dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes:
>>Nevertheless, the requirement (if it truly is so) that 2nd-level
>>domains must be states and 3rd-level domains must be cities is truly
>>bizarre.  Does anyone have the whole story, including the rationale
>>for why this was done?

I agree with you, Steve. If the .US domain is set up explicitely for personal
UNIX systems or for very small one- and two-person consulting firms, I can
kind of understand the rational. They're using something that is already in
place to determine their naming heirarchy, and so no thought needs to go
into a domain name until you reach the actual machine level.

On the other hand, if the .US domain is designed for just anyone, then I think
the assignment of domain names on geographic location is silly. How does a
large multi-state (or multi-national) company decide which domain to go
into under the .US naming scheme?

There are many arguments against the geographic naming of domains - would 
someone care to present them here?

>
>I seriously considered registering our public access Un*x system in
>the .US domain, but given the naming convention and the fact that
>*none* of our users wanted that sort of address inflicted on them we
>opted for the .COM domain.  (Admittedly this is not 100% applicable,
>but *most* of our users are businesses.)  I would be happy to use
>the .US domain instead of the .COM domain if I could administer it
>at the second level (.WA.US) like I do for .WA.COM, but I (and my
>users) refuse to have this city name requirement imposed on us.
>
>Ed Morin
>Northwest Nexus Inc.
>edm@nwnexus.wa.com


A perfect example of an argument against geographically-based domain names.
Others?

						Tim Thompson
						tgt@cbnews.att.com
						tgt@cube.stargate.com