|Problems? Is your data what you think it is?|
Please, please, please, call it Net::CPAN. Then we can get CGI renamed Net::CGI.
Yuck. No. I wouldn't agree with either of those names. Both CGI's and CPAN's relationship to networking is peripheral.
CPAN uses various means to retrieve modules over the network but its real job is to determine dependencies, build, and install those modules. Certainly CPAN could have the functionality to access a local archive via the filesystem rather than the network. I don't use CPAN or CPANPLUS (I answered "make" on the poll) so for all I know one or both already have that functionality. It might be especially useful where institutions keep a local CPAN mirror and make it available to their user base via NFS.
CGI is simply a platform independent interface by which information servers may run external programs. In reality, this is only true for some definitions of "platform independence" and "information servers" but that's its stated goal.1 It currently requires that the external program knows some things about the protocol that the information server is using but the actual network communication takes place through the server itself.
So, I think putting either CPAN or CGI in Net::* would be a mistake.
I wouldn't mind seeing name changes for B and O though.
1That is, its the stated goal of the draft CGI specification not of the CGI module.
-sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";