1. SSL is not fundamentally broken here, one of the hashes that it can optionally use is broken enough that it could be exploited in one case.
2. switching from SSLv3 to SSLv4 would be a simple library change (if it was ever needed), much less invasive than a switch to something completely different like SASL
3. why would you assume that SSL would be broken and SASL wouldn't? swiching form one technology to another based on the fear that someone may break the first one some time in the future is not a very good use of time
4. where did you pick anything up that said that software wasn't verifying fields in the certs, and this is a security problem?
most of the fields in the cert are informational only, they don't matter (unless combined with other knowledge external to the cert)
5. SSL allows for different encryption and hash algorithms to be used. this is how AES has been added to SSL without most of the applications that use it even knowing about it (they just use the openssl libraries, which added a new encryption type). so when SHA-3 is defined, it will be added and people will have the option to start using it.
the issue that another poster mentioned of it being desirable to be able to have multiple signatures to one cert is the reflection of a desire to fundamentally change the basis of trust for the system.
the SSL cert trust model is based on the theory that the signers are trusted absolutly. If they vouch for the identity of someone (or a site), that identity can be trusted.
unfortunantly, in the scale of the Internet today this is a very questionable thing to do. how can you really verify if a person is allowed to get a cert for abc.mysite.com?
and the economic incentives push exactly the other way. A Cert signer who does extensive verification not only spends more to do so (meaning they need to charge more), but it takes longer to fill the customer order, the customer has to spend more time providing the proof that the vendor asks for, and then (to add insult to injury) the resulting cert isn't treated any differently by anyone using it (so there really isn't any benifit from the extra checking)
but if you want to change this you need to define a new approach to solve many problems.
One major problem is that the Internet is just too big for any one entity to really know who is who. but if you try and segment the trust, how do you know when to trust a particular signer and when not to.
if you go to www.mysite.com,
is this a personal site?
is it a banking site?
is it a government site?
is it a store?
is it a business?
is it several of these?
since nobody wants any one country/entity to control the Internet, this means that there will be several entities who could sign for each category. how do you know which ones to trust for this site? it may be that verisign issues the cert that www.microsoft.com uses, bu there is nothing that would prevent a russian or chinese certificate authority from signing a different certificate for the name www.microsoft.com, and if you trust those certificate authorities you would accept either cert. In theory you only want to check the certificate authority that the company has decided to use, but how can you know who that is?