From: "Lynne L. Harrison" <lharrison@mhv.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 01:02:02 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: censored? corrected [Steve Pizzo cited in The Spotlight]
Message-ID: <9511061509.AA10512@mhv.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:06 AM 11/6/95 -0600, Stan Drescher wrote:
>shields@tembel.org (Michael Shields) said:
>
>MS> If the InterNIC yanked your domain, this would *not* affect your IP
>MS> connectivity -- your ability to be reached by any Internet protocol
>MS> via IP address.  The InterNIC has nothing at all to do with that.
>
>	I never disputed that subverting the DNS system would affect the
>ability to use numeric IP addresses, just IP names.<snip>


  There has been a thought that's been in the back of my mind while reading
this thread. For example, at one time, the telephone companies used "names"
such as Klick 5-1234.  Later, they went to all numbers, i.e., 555-1234.
People balked, but they eventually got used to it.  There are other examples
not necessary to list here.
  If, however, the growth continues with people, not only accessing the net,
but getting domain names - doesn't it seem likely that, at some point, only
IP addresses will be left (or dumb domain names like http://www.stkdlcp.com)?
  Ergo, what is the problem with having a numerical URL?  After all, some
people's URL's (in name form) are not the easiest to remember.  In the long
run, numbers may be easier to remember.  Just think of how many numbers
(Soc. Sec. #'s; phone #'s; tax #'s, etc.) that we have committed to memory.
Plus, one doesn't have to worry about InterNIC yanking your domain - and
other related problems.
  Just my .02 cents worth....
  

********************************************************************
Lynne L. Harrison, Esq.
Poughkeepsie, New York 
lharrison@mhv.net

"Say not, 'I have found the truth', but rather, 'I have found a truth.'"
                         - Kahlil Gibran from "The Prophet"
********************************************************************