For an organization that describes itself as "a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable." ICANN sure seems willing to make decisions that go against the wishes of the corporations and governments it serves. Yesterday was the last day for anyone to submit comments on the organization's plan to launch 200-800 new domain name extensions next year, yet there's no sign that ICANN has actually paid meaningful attention to the vehemently negative reactions of numerous companies.

Currently, there are just a handful of generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs), including well-known extensions like .com, .net, .org, and .biz. ICANN's new plan would expand the number of potential gTLDs by several orders of magnitude, and would allow for extensions 3-63 characters long. Allowed extensions would include pretty much anything a company might want—Ars Technica, for example, could conceivably register *.ars, *.arstechnica, or *.arstech. ICANN claims that this new system would offer domain name holders vastly improved choices and allow for more diversity in domain names, particularly for non-English-speaking countries. In and of themselves, these are worthy goals, but arbitrarily redefining the meaning of gTLDs seems a poor way to achieve them, particularly when said redefinition wrecks the current system so thoroughly.

The current gTLD system is meant to function as a neutral framework where domains are organized by category and purpose. The system is far from perfect, but the basic organizational structure is reasonably intuitive. Once a first-time Internet user understands the meaning and prevalence of .com, he or she can readily predict other website addresses with a fair degree of accuracy. Where's Walmart? Try Walmart.com. Heard of a store called Amazon? Try Amazon.com.

One of the primary flaws of the new system is that it replaces a simple (if imperfect) system with something incredibly complex. Is Walmart a .com or a .Wally? If JohnDoe.[insertdomainnamehere] launches next year and becomes the killer website of 2009, where do I find it? "Use a search engine, moron," is, in one sense, a valid answer to that question, but predictive structures are generally considered to be good things, not bad. There's a reason we prefer to organize our personal book collections by alphabetical order according to author rather than the Dewey Decimal system.

You might think that major companies and organizations would be jumping up and down at the chance to own their very own domains, but the response thus far has been anything but positive. Having spent the last seven to ten years building web portals around the original list of gTLDs, most large businesses are distinctly unenthusiastic about having to start that process over. The fact that ICANN is selling off virtually any character string, meanwhile, doesn't just crack the door to fraud, it opens the flood gates, hangs out a "Welcome" sign, and offers free beer.

A number of companies have opted to purchase domain names close to their own, either to prevent typo squatters from making money off an accidental key press or to capture visitors who miss the name of the site in a plausible way. Yahooo.com redirects to Yahoo, Google.biz, .net, or .info all redirect to Google.com, and www.newyorktimes.com drops the errant reader off at www.nytimes.com. This type of investment in alternate domain names makes good business sense, particularly if the incorrect domain name is a logical guess at what the real domain might be, as is the case with www.newyorktimes.com. ICANN's new gTLD structure would make it nearly impossible for companies to recapture/safeguard users in the same fashion without buying a great many additional domains. If you're the New York Times, that means registering .nyt, .nytimes, and .newyorktimes, at the very least.

The potential for gTLD domain abuse is enormous, especially given the potency of certain, previously disallowed, domains. ICANN claims it will only allow companies and individuals who can validly demonstrate why they should have a certain domain to register it, but that's a laughable statement given the number of corrupt registrars who don't perform due diligence. ICANN explicitly states that it "doesn't control content on the Internet" and "cannot stop spam." How, then, does it propose to regulate registration and protect the rights of trademark holders?

If you're wondering how a proposal this fundamentally stupid managed to unanimously pass at ICANN, there's a one-word explanation: Money. Applying for a new domain will cost an estimated $185,000, with an additional $75,000 a year fee to keep the domain registered in the DNS root zone. At those prices, those 800 potential gTLDs are worth $148 million in applicant fees and $60 million in yearly "rent."

There's an extraordinarily huge conflict of interest here. If all 800 domains sell, or if the intial 200 sell well, can anyone see ICANN not doing this again? The process is (or, at least could be) a license to print money: authorize the creation of new gTLDs that companies then feel they have no choice but to buy, pocket the cash, and go home happy. Problem is, virtually no one but ICANN and a few registrars think this is a good idea. Hopefully the organization listens to the comments that have poured in from every side and will leave well enough alone.