How about .CON, for CONfusing?
By CHRIS YURKO
(APRIL 14) -- The wide wonderful world of the World Wide Web just got way wackier. Anybody who thought the intricate system of Internet addresses was confusing before, well, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Before last Tuesday, all U.S. Internet domains -- the most important portion of an Internet address -- ended with one of only six official three-letter suffixes, which identify the addressee by type: .net (for InterNET agencies), .com (for for-profit -- COMmercial -- companies) .gov (for U.S. GOVernment), .org (for non-profit ORGanizations), .edu (for higher EDUcation), and .mil (for U.S. MILitary departments).
But now the groups that control domain registration have expanded the domain domain double domain not a typo to include a new string of endings: .store (for businesses selling merchandise), .info (for information services), .nom (for individuals), .firm (for businesses or firms), .web (for World Wide Web-based businesses), .arts (for artistic or cultural groups), and .rec (for recreational or entertainment-based groups).
The impetus for the additions is clear: the escalating demand for Web page addresses, particularly from businesses which, for obvious reasons, want a domain name that Web-surfing customers will quickly associate with their products and services.
"In my opinion the most important thing about a domain name is that it reinforces name recognition," says Victoria White, owner of the Internet Connection, an Internet consulting company in Northampton, whose own domain is "Inetcon.com."
Domains have always been awarded on a first-come first-serve basis and each domain, each Internet address, must be unique. Latecomers to the Web often find that their business or agency name -- sometimes a trademarked name at that -- is registered to someone else, an individual, another business, or, in a worst case scenario, a competitor.
Those shut out have been forced either to try to buy the domain name from the registered owner, or suffer with a less obvious alternative.
"You have Crocker Bank in California and there's Betty Crocker -- I'm sure they all want Crocker.com, but we're the only ones who have it," said Matt Crocker, president of Crocker Communications Internet services division in Northampton.
With the new endings both Crocker Bank and Betty Crocker will have renewed opportunities to get their own domain with the Crocker name, such as "Crocker.firm" or "Crocker.store."
But it may not be so easy. Even with these new domain endings in place, the same first-come, first-serve rules apply. There's nothing to prevent a company like Crocker Communications from registering the name six more times under the new domain endings, which, in the interests of clarity, is exactly what the company plans to do.
"There's a lot of them we'll end up registering," says Crocker, who would just as soon not be bothered. "Why bother having new domains if everyone with a .com is going to go out and register six times as many domains as they already have?"
What made the six original domain endings so ideal is that there were clear distinctions between them. Unlike Forrest Gump's box of chocolates, you always knew what you were going to get. The new domains blur the lines.
What difference is there, really, between a .com and a .firm? Except that if you didn't get the first you'll almost certainly want the second.
Crocker, and most Internet Service Providers, could make a case for having at least four out of the six new domain endings: .store (they sell Internet services and products); .info (any business on the Internet is an information company), .firm (an alternative to .com), and .web (anyone with a Web page).
For people just setting out to learn the mind-numbing nomenclature of the Net, this will hardly help. And as the Internet continues to grow -- domain name classifications are likely to become further diluted until there are so many domain endings that they become virtually meaningless.
Already there are more domain endings being considered for approval: .corp, .inc, .ltd, as competitors to .com.; .fam for family, to name a few.
What's the alternative?
Crocker halfheartedly suggests an address system patterned more closely after U.S. Postal addresses, which are based on geography. Under such a system, Crocker's domain might read something like this: "crocker.northampton.usa"
But he admits domains like that can get so long "they get ugly." He doesn't really have a feasible recommendation.
"Who knows how it's going to go?"
Originally printed in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on April 14, 1997.
Back to News
| 
