The internet is poised to gain a whole lot of new domain names in the very near future, from the useful (.app, .dev) to the more whimsical (.ninja, .lol). Unfortunately, some of the more useful domains may end being locked up behind Google's closed doors.

Google isn't the only company trying to get an exemption for top level domains (TLDs) it controls like .dev, but it has filed the most applications for keeping domains private.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, better known as ICANN, has been expanding domain names beyond the familiar .com, .net, .org, .edu, etc for a while now. But ICANN doesn't have the resources to manage all these new domains so it's auctioning them off. Anyone willing to pay out the $185,000 fee could bid on top level domains. Yes, even you can apply, though you'll want to hurry because big names like Google, Apple, Amazon and hundreds of others have already applied.

For the most part the companies bidding on the new domains simply intend to resell addresses at these domains. In fact in most cases they have to do that, but ICAAN is taking applications for exceptions to this. That is, companies may apply for an exemption which would allow them to keep all the names in a domain for themselves.

In most cases this makes sense. For example CERN wants to create and have sole use of .cern. Likewise .bloomberg can probably remain the sole province of Bloomberg without any harm befalling the internet. However there are plenty of examples in ICANN's current list of <a href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting/ccer">applications for exception</a> that would give the companies involved a significant advantage.

There's one name that comes up quite a few times in the list of exemption applications -- Charleston Road Registry Inc. This is actually Google, using a shell company whose "CEO" is Google's in-house counsel. The company wants to keep these domains "completely closed for the sole use of Google," as the <a href="https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1339">application</a> for the .dev exemption reads. 

Some of the exceptions Google is seeking make sense, for example .youtube or .gmail, but others like .nexus, and particularly .dev, have a potentially much broader application.

Why not also share the wealth of .dev with developers? In a word: branding. Google's application for .dev reads: "The proposed gTLD will provide Google with direct association to the term 'dev,' which is an abbreviation of the word, 'development.' The mission of this gTLD, .dev, is to provide a dedicated domain space in which Google can enact second-level domains specific to its projects in development."

This isn't the first time Google has tried to lock up some of these new domains in an effort to boost its brands. The company previously tried to buy .blog, which it intended to pair with its Blogger service so that the only way to get a .blog domain would be to use Blogger. Google lost its bid for .blog, but it did win .dev and .app.

Perhaps understandably the move to keep domains out of public hands has led to some push back against ICANN's exemption clause. The exemptions haven't been granted yet, the application process is now in the "accepting comments" phase. 

Google's own comments on the process are confusing. The company <a herf="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/pdfcUZaOfUYQG.pdf">argues</a> that private gTLDs are important, but also that no one actually wants gTLDs "because of the strong user bias toward domains within .com". This then gets turned around as a reason why ICANN should grant Google the exemption that it wants. No one wants them anyway, so just give them to us.

The letter does have one paragraph that makes sense: "Today, most Internet users have only one practical choice when it comes to how their TLDs are managed: a completely unrestricted model environment in which any registrant can register any name for any purpose and use it as they see fit."  

Google paints this unlimited choice of who gets which domain as a bad thing, but the company is largely alone in that belief. The unrestricted model actually nicely mirrors the relatively unrestricted nature of the internet itself. It might not be good for Google's plans, but it sure has worked well for the rest of the web.