The internet’s domain name system will soon undergo a major expansion. But wherever there are new resources, there are arguments over how to exploit them.

Specifically, the idea of a .xxx web suffix for porn sites, once characterised as the internet’s vampire, may have risen from the dead as part of a larger argument over rules for how much discretion will be exercised in accepting or denying applications.

Icann is the organisation which controls generic top-level domains. Roughly, these are the website suffixes such as .com and .org that are not owned by a country (such as .uk or .us). Some recently approved domain applications were .jobs, .mobi and .travel.

The most notorious recent rejected application was .xxx. An extensive new report has just been released regarding issues relating to expanding the number of top level domains (TLD).

Controversy has raged around provisions that a proposed new TLD “must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order”, and whether there is “substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted”.

These are acknowledged to have come out of the contentions over .xxx. They’re obviously intended to put a stake through its heart once and for all, and any unholy spawn which it might inspire in the future.

Jonathan Zittrain, professor of internet governance and regulation at Oxford, has said: “Arguments about Icann and domain names don’t much matter except to those who want a piece of the financial pie, and I think predictions of domain names’ unimportance have largely proven true ... I find it hard to really care if Icann wants to allow some names and deny others.”  (people.oii.ox.ac.uk)

The .xxx domain proposal was widely viewed as a bad idea, impressively drawing broad opposition from disparate groups such as censors, civil libertarians and the adult entertainment industry.

This shows where those viewing new suffixes too much as a matter of free speech are misguided. New TLDs are often revenue opportunities to sell registrations to trademark owners and speculation game-players.

Icann is an organisation long dogged by problems of transparency and accountability, viewed with suspicion by many observers. It is easy to paint it as a villain against a fantasy of utopia. But even a small familiarity with the shenanigans surrounding monetising domain names should make you pause for thought before advocating a laissez-faire system.

We are not operating without any experience in these matters. For example, the .cm domain (belonging to the country of Cameroon) has been used to grab traffic from typographical errors of .com sites. And the .com domain itself has seen a major controversy over such typo traffic.

There have been many arguments over whether domain registries are dealing properly with companies that seek to buy domain names solely for resale, or even use as spam sites.

The domain name market is full of rent-seekers, speculators, squatters and various scammers looking to make a quick buck. Having policies aimed at discouraging new TLDs that seem prone to those activities is simply a good idea.