On the topic of 'forcing' a migration:
When talking about this, you've got to recall the original intent when creating naming services for the Internet: they were to make numeric address reference much more easily referenced. (For instance, now you go to domainname.com instead of having to remember 232.49.42.14.)
Yes, it adds another level of complexity and difficulty when setting up a domain (you not only have to get your IP address but also a domain name - and then have the domain name point to that IP address), but it's a necessary component in referencing a site. It doesn't necessarily have to be contextual to the site's content - though that's useful. However, I think that it should be within the scope of ICAN to determine what kind of sites can host content on a given top level domain (ie .com, .net, etcetera).
Currently, there's already restrictions for .gov and .edu, as well as stated but unenforced restrictions (more like guidelines) for .net (for 'network') and .org ('organization'). Really, if you think about it, having these domain monickers is fairly antiquated, even when you consider .com (originally for 'company') and the two-letter country-associated domains (.tw, .uk, .ru, and on and on). These limited naming conventions were conceptualized long before the Internet became completely global and where anyone can set up a domain on any topic matter whatsoever.
The rules predate network gaming, digital photography, and any of the other media elements. Furthermore, there were other, different technologies and protocols for things which are done over the WWW namespace today: newsgroups were largely supplanted by forums and bulletin boards (such as this one); web-based chat supplanted IRC; sites like downloads.com supplanted FTP file repositories. Everything and everything had a web interface tacked on, and the price of entry into independent web hosting is now a thousandth (or less) of the cost of such things 10 (ok, more like 12 or 13) years ago.
Meanwhile, the web using demographic has changed drastically. During the Internet's adolescence (ie 13 or so years ago), the primary people "online" were researchers, technologists, university students, larger businesses and corporations. Things like AOL - sans actual Internet access - were still thoroughly in the realm of 'home computer hobbyist'.
So basically, I think the top level domains are broken. I think that, like any data reference mechanism, the domains should be reorganized and updated. There should be .porn, as well as an array of other topical segregations which could broadly apply where it would be more appropriate than .com (company specific sites - iirc; it may have been for 'community' but I can't find a reference right now), .net (networks of any type), and .org (again, formal or informal organizations). Here are the ones I would add, off the top of my head:
* .forum
* .blog
* .porn
* .news
* .res or .lib (for 'resources' or 'libraries')
* .guns (hey, I'm an American!)
Of course, alternatively, we could always transliterate UNIX file storage nomenclature to domain topicality; it would work better, and wouldn't be as anarchistic, but it would certainly be more difficult to maintain and would be liable to abuse. Somewhere in between, I think, would be preferential. (Newsgroup nomenclature is also something I'd jump at.)
Either way, with the potential number of domains and sites out there, there's really no practical way to enforce anything - especially not at prices under $10 a year. No company will switch, 'simply because'; they're already established with that 'name', and short of forceful coersion, things will remain as they are, I think: individuals converging on a mostly-automated process making individual choices. Adding more domains will simply add options (which are, IMO, good and useful).
The real "problem" then, as it's being perceived, is that porn and other similar items are crowding out the rest of the Internet and generally getting in the way of what people are looking for - generally, information in one form or another. Understandably, as pornography is the primary material on the Internet. Heck, roughly <a href="
http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3083001">12%[/url] of the Internet's content is porn - that's a lot of naked, uninhibited girls from California! (But, I digress.)
Thus, porn (and not spam and advertising sites) is the topic of the day, as it's the most distracting or offensive to a majority of viewers: if you don't find it offensive, you're likely to be distracted by it. (Or asexual.) This results in people wanting to organize and segregate things, so they can avoid being bombarded by them.
So, maybe there's a way to maintain the 'unenforced', free-form nature of the Internet while gaining a degree of organization. I think that, if it ever comes about, it will not come about through the crude mechanisms of domain names. If any current technology brings it about, it will likely be through search engines or a derived technology. Even the best current search engines are facing problems with spam and such now, too...
