The paper, A Data-Oriented (and Beyond) Network Architecture, proposes to replace well known internet names, like www.google.com, with long names which are not human readable. As a newbie to this field I appreciate the paper for the exposure it provides to related work. Routing by name and anycast seem to be important.
I'm sure there are a lot of things to learn from this work. However, my gut reaction is that the idea of getting rid of human readable names will never ever work. Those names are too valuable. An internet name is essentially a brand. Brands can have a lot of value. This issue of internet naming is a financial issue, as well as a networking issue. Naming is also an important human computer interaction issue.
To me, naming is what abstracts the data from the specific host from which it may be obtained. When I type in a name, I expect a service, and I don't care which specific host provides it. I do expect the name to be persistent. And it generally is.
The new approach to naming proposed in this paper is intended to improve persistence of names for data or services. It seems to me that the proposed changes to naming may actually make names less persistent than they are today. The new names are associated with public-private key pairs. This means that if the key changes, then the name is no longer valid.