As was expected, confusion concerning the initial registration periods and the intended purposes and uses of these new domains was bound to arise. In addition, as the new domain names begin resolving, i.e. are available for use on the Internet, confusion is likely to increase. This is unfortunate as the main purpose behind the introduction of these new domains was to open up more name space in the DNS while, according to the WIPO Final Report, not disrupting the orderly functioning of the DNS.

Internet users will now be faced with many new choices when utilizing web browsers. Rather than merely searching for a particular website using the intuitively simple ABC.COM, or variations of ABC.COM, ABC.NET, and ABC.ORG, Internet users will need to decide, if, for example, they are searching for a business, whether also to search under .BIZ, and whether a business or not, weather also to search under the .INFO domain. Furthermore, if a business contains a personal name, Internet users will need to decide whether to search under .NAME. If the business happens to be in the air transportation industry, the Internet user might then need to search under .AERO, although it is expected that .AERO will be limited to the internal functions of those in the air transport industry. When searching for information concerning their local museum, an Internet user will need to decide whether to search in the .MUSEO domain, the .COM, .NET, and .ORG domains, or the .INFO and .BIZ. domains. If the museum happens to be the name of a person, such as, for example, the GUGGENHEIM museum in New York, the Internet search may well need to include a search under .NAME, i.e. SALOMON.R.GUGGENHEIM.NAME. Further exacerbating the problem is the possibility that the domain name might be listed under a ccTLD. In short, the current situation is akin to having numerous telephones, each only capable of connecting to a certain location.

A further dilemma for companies that wish to prevent such confusion to their consumers will be whether they should obtain registrations in each of these domains, for all of their marks. Certain individuals will face similar problems in policing their names on the Internet. For larger companies with many marks, and smaller companies with limited resources, the range of potential domain name registrations clearly presents significant logistical and economic barriers. Given the amount of choices, inevitably there will be "holes" in the domain name coverage which a company or individual is able, or wants to, procure, opening the door to those who would wish to exploit such holes, i.e. cybersquatters.

To add to the confusion, there is also discussion concerning restricting the .ORG domain to solely not-for-profit organizations, as was the original intention. Through years of use by all types of individuals and entities, the .ORG domain is no longer perceived by the Internet community as what it was originally intended to be, a restricted domain for not-for-profit organizations. Rather, it is now perceived and used as merely another generic top-level domain, like .COM. The .COM domain was originally intended for commercial activity, and .NET was originally intended for networks. The separate designations were an attempt to segregate the users dependent, at least to some small extent, by the activity of the user.

However, at this late date, unfortunately, the "milk has been spilt." It would cause great confusion to many in the Internet community if we were now to attempt to revert back to restricting the use of .ORG to not-for-profits. Doing so would be harmful to those who have already registered .ORG names, many of whom registered them as the "second best" alternative to a .COM or .NET domain name, and use them in ways not compatible with not-for-profit activities. Even if the previous Registrants were allowed to keep their names, this would then be harmful to them as the "cache" of an .ORG address would no longer remain and Internet users might cease searching for businesses operating for-profit under this domain, making the .ORG domain of limited value to the for-profit businesses who were first to register. It would also be potentially harmful to those not-for-profit organizations the proposal is intended to benefit, as confusion could be caused in the minds of consumers concerning the profit or not-for-profit motive of the respective companies accessed under the .ORG address. If there is sufficient community consensus among not-for-profit organizations, these groups should petition ICANN for a new domain suffix, such as, for example, .NONCOM.

There is also discussion concerning the adoption of a .EU domain for the European Union as either a gTLD or a ccTLD. The author is skeptical of this proposal and believes that, like the addition of other domains, this will only lead to further confusion and cybersquatting. As an initial matter, the .EU domain should not be allowed to function as a ccTLD as it is not a country, but merely a quasi-governmental organization. As a gTLD, .EU would be unrestricted and could be registered by anyone, whether or not residing or having any association with the European Union, and this would clearly lead to confusion. The creation of this domain will also open the door to more confusing domain extensions like it, for example .BX for Benelux, or perhaps, O.A.P.I., for the African Intellectual Property Organization, and many more claims.