Domain-name expansion likely to create turf wars

Stand aside, dot-com, king of the Web's early years. The realm of top-level domains, fiefdoms that also include dot-net, dot-edu, dot-org, and dot-gov, is about to get much more populous.

The dramatic rise in the number of new fiefdoms won't begin until 2013. But as the landscape starts to take shape in the coming months, you can expect some fascinating battles for brand-new turf - potentially valuable property created from whole cloth by the nonprofit corporation that oversees the Internet's naming system.

One local Internet lawyer foresees a fight for control of dot-Philly. New York City has already made it clear that it sees dot-NYC as a potential civic asset, and has taken steps to steer its future. And large companies will undoubtedly become lords of their own domains. You can expect to see dot-Ford, dot-Google, and dot-Microsoft.

But the rules laid down last week by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, don't stop with such obvious new entrants, which will add to the handful of top-level domains that have joined the pioneers over the last decade - such as dot-info, dot-biz, dot-mobi, dot-jobs, and dot-travel.

Come January, when the application process opens for new top-level domains, the lid comes off. ICANN initially expects only a few hundred prospective domain registrants to pay its $185,000 application fee. But qualified applicants can seek to create domains based on just about any word in the dictionary, place name in the gazetteer, or trade name under the applicant's legitimate control.

To supporters of the more open architecture, the change is a long time coming.

"What people are looking for are domain names that reflect their preference in some way. There's no reason to be restricted to dot-com, dot-org, or dot-net," says Milton Mueller, a professor at Syracuse University active in Internet-governance issues. "If you want to try dot-music or dot-food, why not try?"

Even advocates of the new rules say they are unsure how these turf battles will play out - or even how much the outcomes will matter.

In the Web's early years, turf battles were often over control of generic names that seemed to have obvious value, such as Pets.com or Cars.com. Any business looking to build an online identity faced the worry that Web surfers would go to the site of a more aggressive competitor.