ICANN, the Internet Authority is up against the wall, and here are the top five reasons for which it may simply drop its greatest revolutionary idea of offering a brand new type of a designer domain name to fit the next generation of widely expanded Internet and cyber realities of tomorrow.  This new proposed platform will surely revolutionize the marketing and branding for big and small businesses around the world, offering highly affordable tools for global reach than ever before but the strong opposition would like to kill this idea? Would ICANN consider dropping the idea? Here are the five reasons:

One: Fear of rejection and lack of support by the Internet practitioners and the domain registrar community of the world, who for some strange reason have not expressed their full and open support, partially due to serious lack of understanding of the global business nomenclature and also for real complexities of cyber-branding.

Historically speaking the original concept of the first five suffixes, like com or net, most probably drawn up at the back of a napkin, have proven one thing, that till now .com is the king and all the others suffixes are in a struggle. So, suddenly the unlimited issuance of suffixes of choice is a shocker.

Internet registrars in a suffix driven registration mentality are quite right as their existing suffixes will seriously shrink. However, based on soon to be released study by ABC Namebank, which points to the law of usability which dictates that these new domains are not about suffixes, rather these are domain names without suffixes. The future is all about name driven domain identities over suffix driven domain identities and the lack of corporate nomenclature understanding at a global scale is the proof. Imagine a city phone book and yellow pages under a suffix system. 100 phone books anyone?

The study also points to the numbers of new applications under the new platform to be so large all over the world that it will totally re-energize the entire Internet support services due new sets of domain name management and varied registrations requirements.

Two: Lack of credibility and confusion among the trademark professionals and attorneys worldwide who are aggressively exploring their particular role in the process but still keep pointing out serious risks to trademark holders and of increased cyber squatting.

The trademark profession justifiably recognizes three critical issues, firstly, the availability, suitability and registrability of any proposed name application under the common law, allowing traditional trademark process which provides progressive jurisdictional approval over years and now its sudden correlation to a new process of global cyber name branding in one single stroke. Secondly, the court challenges between newly recognized cyber brands and traditionally filed brands and lastly, the serious limitations on already approved trademarked names filed in regions in their own classification which would only fail on this single classification new platform where only one single name would be allowed to exist.

The study by ABC Namebank clearly points to a serious 95% dilution factor among major business names around the world and how this cyber branding race will create havoc among those aggressively filed but poorly crafted brand names.

Despite, all the weird and mysterious reasons, the fact remains that most medium and large size business names all over the world are badly structured and cannot pass the global test on this new platform and the exposure of this blunt fact should not be one of the prime reason of opposition, rather it only creates a great opportunity as a fix for real global image expansion. Irrespective of all this it will be a real big bang era for trademark and legal professions as they are poised to play a very big role.

Three: Complete absence of any enthusiastic support from the advertising and marketing trade, this group is not only oblivious to this tsunami but due to the technical ramification finds it at odds to even mention it.