On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Paul A Vixie wrote:
what's good about a geographic/city split anyway?), why not have
Top level geographies are most likely to map to organizations willing to maintain subdelegations. Other than that, it's all arbitrary other than that it's necessary to have a deep tree.
I already know that U.S. companies put under states are going to feel overspecified. I can already hear the reasons why IBM.COM.NY.US is supposedly "wrong" since IBM is a nationwide, no, worldwide company.
In the .ca domain, companies with offices in two or more provinces can have a top level name, i.e. ibm.ca. With offices in two or more cities in a single province they can have a name at the next level, i.e. widget.ab.ca. If they are in one city only, their name must include the city as in joes-eats.vancouver.bc.ca.
When 25,000,000 companies have domain names, there will be at least three labels in most of those top level names. It cannot be helped.
You could use a system similar to .ca which allows you to remove nonsense geographic labels but still elegantly handles the millions of small businesses with presence in a single town. Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com