Death of dotcom? The liberalisation of the internet could create a more localised and interest led domain space

When looking at the wider potential of liberalisation of the Internet, the issue of control throws up several areas of concern. ICANN has already outlined its proposals for how the various sub-groups of domain names extensions will be managed, but in some cases these proposals throw up more questions than they answer. For example the following issues could arise:

• .God: What if this domain were to be bought and registered by a group of atheists? Or by a single faction of a religion? This would cause uproar on a global scale. ICANN has had to instigate a process whereby domains relating to morality will need to be decided upon and administered by a committee. But who should sit on that committee?

• .London: There are already plans underway that any organisation wishing to manage or be part of a new geography top level domain name should reside or have a presence in the chosen geography. This is the same for the current plans around .paris and .nyc

• .Brand: The ultimate anti-competitive behaviour would be for a company to buy-up its competitors brand name TLD. Whilst trademark laws and planned ICANN regulations make this unlikely to happen, the complications around how to administer domains amongst the millions of global brands and trademarks cannot be ignored

• .Doctor: There is a great industrial opportunity around specific business sectors and groups, but this would require industry organisations taking a more active role in leading the way and setting a standard which their members can then sign-up to and follow

• .Sex/ .Xxx: There is an argument that creating the Internet equivalent of a red light zone will make the regulation and management of Internet pornography and adult rated content easier to manage. On the other hand, it may be hard to control and enforce exactly what stays in the zone vs what is let out

Pic: How the new internet landscape could look after liberalisation.

With this level of confusion it may not be surprising that consumers have managed to muster little enthusiasm for any new top-level domains. A quarter of people are ambivalent about the prospect of a .music suffix and 28% would be wary of domains ending with .theirprofession. Just 15% think this sort of suffix would be appealing. Consumers are most suspicious of extensions linked to porn and religion. A massive 84% of consumers think .sex is dodgy, and two thirds think .god is suspect.

One prospect that does interest consumers, however, is the opportunity that new suffixes present for building communities online. Of the consumers surveyed, 29% think the Internet will become localised, allowing cities and towns to create virtual spaces that promote the local area and that connect communities.

How will the future play out?

The current plans for liberalisation reflect a great opportunity to get the domain space in order. ICANN now has the opportunity to set clear guidelines and enforce a higher standard of practice with new TLDs so they are not littered with spam, adverts and unused domain names. In the past, it’s been a bit like the Wild West, but the line between our on and offline worlds is blurring and there needs to be greater stewardship of the internet as a resource for multiple stakeholders. This could be the beginning of the great clear-up of the future Internet.