RE: A philosophical question about large directory structures

Andrew,

Well, this works for me.  It passes the user-friendly test.

Cheers,                     ....Erik.

------------------------------------
Erik Skovgaard
GeoTrain Corp.
Directory Planning & Training
http://www.geotrain.com

At 09:03 99/06/24 +1000, Andrew Probert wrote:
>A core problem being people started to introduce trademarking as well and we
>all know the same trademark-name can be used multiply in the real world e.g.
>a 'Widget' trademark on a mechanical device and a 'Widget' trademark on a
>piece of software are considered two different things.
>
>Each country has a company registration authority.  If this was considered
>the 'authoritatitve' directory for comany names and the were federated, we'd
>have a good thing!
>
>Andew Probert
>Rotek Consulting   http://www.rotek.com.au
>a Division of Secure Network Solutions
>Tel  +61 3 9690 8877
>Fax +61 3 9690 8171
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	Dave  J Woolley [SMTP:[email protected]]
>> Sent:	Thursday, June 24, 1999 3:06 AM
>> To:	'[email protected]'
>> Subject:	RE: A philosophical question about large directory
>> structures 
>> 
>> > From:	Erik Skovgaard [SMTP:[email protected]]
>> > 
>> > Since the Directory name registration is closely tied to the legal names
>> > of
>> > companies in most countries, I think that makes for a much better
>> choice.
>> > 
>> 	I don't think you can rely on this.  At one time domain
>> 	names in the UK were tied to legal names, but, once name
>> 	registration was privatised, names became a valuable commodity,
>> 	and you even got companies buying up names speculatively.
>> 
>> 	To guarantee well behaved names in the long term, you really
>> 	need legislation or a government agency; formation of the 
>> 	latter is against the trend in the Western world.
>> 
>> 	About the only commercial entities with an interest in 
>> 	administering a well behaved namespace are people like
>> 	Verisign.
>
>