Domain names, as regulated as they are, are a concept racked with ambiguity and ethical considerations. There are those sickened by the fact that they can be bought cheap and re-sold (most notably for 7.5 Million, as in business.com). There are idealists who cling to the belief that the internet in reality should adhere to the principles with which the DNS was created. For instance, the generic top level domain name .com should really apply only to company sites, and not be taken as the obligatory suffix. (Its difficult to see this battle as anything but futile).

Luckily, some new domain name issues have surfaced to distract us with drama on what may be a larger scale. Earlier this summer, it was announced that the ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), which is the organization that controls the creation and administration of generic top level domain names (.edu, .org, .com, as well as country codes like .uk), approved a relaxation to the current rules that takes major steps toward making it possible for companies to buy top level domain names. Rumor has it that testing has already begun. So, Google could buy .google (or .goog!), a porn site could finally get their .xxx, and an internet marketing company .seo, if they so desire.

With some exceptions, that is. The major one is, not surprisingly, $$$. The concept of the “yet-unpoached” domain name, to quote a colleague, will be nonexistent in relation to top level domains. If you don’t have the cash to back up your request, you’re out of luck, regardless of whether anyone else has any interest in the name. While anyone can apply, the coveted TLD will in the end go to the highest bidder. Approximations of price are on the order of a couple thousand.

And this is not all. Other types of issues (the list is long) include:

Pragmatic: There are those who think real-(web)-world use of TLDs won’t catch on. They may have a point. On a general level, there are a couple reasons why some tools and practices are taken for granted while others never are. One is that the best really do, upon introduction, offer a vast improvement over the old system (think Google’s emergence). The second is that once adopted and used regularly over a reasonable duration, people tend to stick with what they know.

So will the new system offer that incredible improvement required to make it second-nature? Not at all, say skeptics. Subdomains can now accomplish what the new TLDs are essentially doing.

Lexical/Morphological: Consider the soon-to-be-feasible .corn. See any problems?

According to this CircleID post, an algorithm will eliminate such problems by outlawing proposed TLDs that are very visually similar to existing names.

A similar problem may crop up with regard to common misspellings of top level domains. How much might “.comn” or “.comm” be worth? Would this be considered an moral issue, and be outlawed by the ICANN? Misspelling of lower level domain names, to my knowledge, are legal.

Econo-Political: Currently, the domain name industry maintains a competitive marketplace. Anyone with a web server (plus the willingness and basic requirements to maintain web hosting) can jump in and begin selling domain names, once they’ve registered them to their box through the ICANN. GoDaddy competes with Network Solutions competes with the smaller hosting companies that abound.

When it comes to the proposed TLD system, ICANN will retain sole rights to police new requests, reserving the right to turn down requests on “moral or public order” grounds.

One burning question remains: if not for money, why would ICANN be taking these steps?

Well, I’m not certain, but it may be that the action is aligned more with the organization’s overall reason-for-being than it is with making some cash. At least one country, (the Polynesian island Tuvalu), has taken advantage of its lucrative country code by leasing it to television firms. The new TLD system will put a stop to this by establishing a world-wide application procedure and rules.