It's not exactly a new idea, but the moment you get more than two scientists in the room to discuss such things, you tend to get two diverging opinions on how to proceed.  Put 20 in the same room and you are likely to have 20 different opinions - at the very least different basic disciplines will bring a very different perspective to such a process.  In only took several decades to finally get some consistency and semi-standardization on naming (at least mammalian) genes (although there is by no means a true universal standard for such things even now).

Also, keep in mind that GenBank is effectively an un-curated database, and NIH funding is almost certainly never going to provide for a significant curation staff, which would be essential to actual implement any such standardized processes.  RefSeq is curated, but then again, individual researchers cannot submit directly to RefSeq.

I don't deplore the effort in trying such things, but in my professional lifetime, I've just noticed that arriving at such consensus standards is extraordinarily difficult and time consuming, and so even finding someone dogged enough to sustain the effort is pretty daunting.

Thanks for you answer. 

I think the issue is I'm new to the game and still very idealistic. 

"I think the issue is I'm new to the game and still very idealistic. "

Nothing wrong with that at all.

In kindness to the legacy of GenBank though, remember it even predates wide spread use of relational databases as we know them now.  Originally, GenBank was distributed as paper print outs in binders (then later on CD, and finally made available as an internet download).  It was not really a database, in the modern sense at all - it was merely a searchable series or collection of flat file tables.

And by being un-curated, user submission data, it grew even early on at an exponential rate as anyone and everyone could submit their data as they generated it.  It was originally seen (as I recall) as more a concept for data sharing and dissemination than a formal database repository.

That's no reason to repeat those some limitations with new database resources, which is one of the reasons for the birth of RefSeq.  RefSeq is an attempt to have curators mine GenBank and capture information in a more refined and rigorous database.  So the issues you mention are things worth discussing and considering as new resources are developed and brought online for everyone to use.