When the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) finally introduces new Top Level Domain names (TLDs) later this year, a high-stakes power struggle over how the spoils will be shared will be joined.

A non-profit group chosen by the US government to quarterback internet domains, ICANN recently gathered in Japan to debate the pros and cons of adding new top-level suffixes to compete with the unrestricted ".com", ".net" and ".org" in cyberspace. But the meeting was noted more for what it did not decide.

Will ICANN make Ralph Nader's consumer-rights outfit happy and unveil a ".sucks" TLD? Or, will it please the airlines by opting for ".air"? How about ".shop" for storefronts or ".sex" for the uninhibited?

And, even if they can decide on the four or six new TLDs without much controversy, who will stop Joe Blow from snapping up Continental.air or Yahoo.shop?

"It is going to be a nightmare," said Doug Wood, a Gotham-based attorney specializing in intellectual property law.

Wood, a partner at Hall Dickler Kent Goldstein & Wood, is predicting cyber-anarchy. "When this is all over, ICANN will create more enemies than friends. Can you imagine what will happen if they choose to go for ".shop" instead of ".air"? They are opening Pandora's Box for no realistic reason. What is so wrong with ".com" or ".net"?"

Well, domain name registrars who make a killing out of selling the valuable cyberspace real estate, claim they are running out of ".com" and ".net" names. Conservative estimates say more than 30,000 standard words in the English Language dictionary have been converted into a dot-com.

That does not take into account the estimated millions of variations and combinations that have been created into domains.

LATEST NEWS

UCSD Plans First Flash-Based Supercomputer
Digging Into N.Y.'s Antitrust Suit Against Intel
Analyst: Sony-Ericsson's Android Bid Is Late
Coupon Site Targets Black Friday, Cyber Monday
Microsoft Sites Up Big in Time Spent Online

Network Solutions, Inc., an early player in the registering of web addresses, could literally hear the ka-chinging of their cash registers. "Opening the namespace and creating new competition among top-level domains will offer consumers more choices and, we believe, lead to wider use of the Internet," the company's CEO, Jim Rutt, said.

Rutt's Network Solutions, was heavily involved in the ICANN deliberations over the years and has offered numerous suggestions to avoid corporate controversies but there is lingering distrust among competitors of Network Solutions that could torpedo the process.

Add the fears of intellectual property rights activists into the mix and it is clear ICANN is treading on thin ice.

The power struggle over the TLD space is nothing new. Back in 1996, leading Internet companies formed the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) to draft a proposal to introduce new suffixes.

The IAHC proposed to introduce several new suffixes and set up a lottery to select a new domain registrar. To enter the lottery, businesses were to pay $20,000, employ at least ten people, have $500,000 in reserves, and meet other requirements.

The proposal did nothing more than spawn a slew of lawsuits charging back-door dealings and perceived monopoly authority granted to Network Solutions. In 1999, Name-space.com, formerly PG Media, lost an antitrust case against Network Solutions when a federal appeals court ruled dismissing charges the registrar violated antitrust laws and overcharged customers for domain names.

That decision led to the mushrooming of several smaller, independent registrars of alternative top level domains.

By 1997, the situation got even more chaotic when Network Solutions distanced itself from IAHC proposal and called for a more market-driven plan to market domain names.

The US government got involved and this is where ICANN came into the picture. A who's who of the tech industry sat on the board of directors and offices were set up inMarina Del Rey, California.

ICANN decided to abandon haste in favor of democracy and the process slowed considerably. Meetings and deliberations were scheduled in far reaches of the world and online public participation was encouraged.

With the interests of companies, registrars, countries and consumers colliding, very little has been resolved.

Even with last weekend's bold announcement, ICANN is still to decide on the actual titles of the new TLDs and how they will be administered. Another sore issue is who should get first crack at the names.

With domain names being auctioned for as much $120,000 online (URLbay.com's lowest asking price for a domain name is $5,000), a huge land grab appears inevitable.

And, the branded companies worldwide fear it will cost a bundle to protect their interest. From McDonalds to Coca Cola, there are rumbles in the corridors of power that expensive lawsuits will be required to protect a trademarked name from landing in the ownership of a greedy public.

Yahhoo.com, for instance, is now owned by someone listed as "Crazy" in La Puente, California. Yahhoo.com is not yet an operational website and it is not clear what 'Crazy' plans to do with the name.

What about Amazon.com, the online bookseller that spent $100 million in 1999 to keep its brand name on top of the clutter of dot-com wannabes?

"It is a big issue for the trademarked companies," added Wood. "What if they choose to go for ".shop" and someone legally buys the "amazon.shop" domain name? That only exacerbates the problem. Once there is a real value to these domain names, the problems will never end. By opting for new TLDs, we are creating another group of cybersquatters."

ICANN and its 56 operational registrars around the world claim they have a workable Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy regarding trademark/domain name disputes. It basically mandates that registrars receiving service mark complaints "take no action" until they receive an order from a court, arbitrator or neutral decision-maker.

Therein lies the crux of the problem. Corporations contend that a gold rush to register the new domain names will result in extra legal costs for them to retrieve or protect their trademarks.

Another ICANN proposal gaining some momentum is for the implementation of a "sunrise period" during which "certain trademark holders would be permitted to register domain names" reflecting their trademarks and brands.

If a sunrise approach were applied to a first pair of new domains on an experimental basis, it might be easier to achieve broader agreement to introduce these TLDs, Network Solutions suggested in a white paper to ICANN.

But the issue is not quite as straightforward.

Who decides that Delta Airlines should go before Delta Faucets for the "delta.shop" name?

And, who will police the process to keep extortionists at bay? Anti-cybersquatting legislation might provide the answers but, in the absence of laws, many believe ICANN should simply hold off on the introduction of the new suffixes.

"I have not heard of anyone being denied a ".com" or a ".net" TLD. It is not like we are running out of names. We have enough litigation flying around with the existing TLDs, why exacerbate the problem?" Wood argued.

Wood's point is valid. New top-level domain names will be really neat as an identifier of specific interests but it creates more harm than good. By yearend, we'll know for sure how this will all play out.

In the meantime, watch out for flying bottles.

* Ryan Naraine (rnaraine@internet.com) is atNewYork.com's assistant editor.