[Commenting on ICANN approving new TLD process, I wrote this for a mailing list, responding to a post about The Money is What Matters!]
A _Guardian_ column I wrote about this last year is relevant:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/aug/23/guardianweeklytechnologysection.internet
"The domain name system is full of rent-seekers, speculators, squatters and various scammers."
I've seen some of the shenanigans that go on. We've about to be inundated with clever schemes based on exploiting top-level domains.
Stuff like "dot-greed" is too obvious. Personally, I want ".cmo", for typo-squatting, I mean, Chief Medical Officers. And also ".cim", for more typo-squatting, I mean, the Common Information Model.
If we don't get dot-ex-ex-ex, to sell to defensive registrations to trademark owners, I mean, for sex sites, how about ".hate", for a similar idea? That is, the new TLD ".hate" would be said to be for self-described hate-sites to self-label. But you, Mr/Ms Trademark Owner, can buy a pre-emptive registration for a special rate.
I'm sure there's a wide ranger of ingenuity that will be applied, given the lucrative mix of speculation, typo traffic, certification fees, and trademark issues. ICANN has just bought itself years and years of litigation headaches.
[End message]
I've also been mentioned (thanks) in Charles Arthur's Guardian article I've got a .bridge I'd like to sell you :
It's weird. As our regular columnist Seth Finkelstein has repeatedly pointed out, the arguments against the ".xxx" suffix (regularly touted as a red-light district for the web) are simple: it wouldn't restrict porn to that area, and it would simply be a bonanza for domain name registrars and con artists or cybersquatters looking to make a quick buck.
Bonus link - Rich Kulawiec explains (at length)
We don't need any more gTLDs: if any are created, they will quickly be overrun by abusers and rendered as much a wasteland as .info is today. In the process, registrars will profit, abusers will profit, and everyone else will be forced into pointless expenditures (to proactively or reactively defend themselves from the ensuing abuse).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/aug/23/guardianweeklytechnologysection.internet
What's in a name? Tell that to those arguing the toss over .xxx
"The domain name system is full of speculators, squatters and scammers."
ICANN is asking for public comment about the process for approving new "top-level domains". And the .XXX domain may be making a stealth return. I argue against having a neutral stance on monopolistic rent-seeking.