if a network is well protected its internal pc's will have the IP address of the firewall which means that for example 10.000 pc's or 5 will use or have the same IP address
the reason is that none of these internal pc's could be contacted individually or set connections to the internet without any security controls and protections
ICANN is now revising a list of 1000 new extensions that could be accepted to sell domainnames to the same firms (defend your trademark everywhere anytime)
it wanted to know if there were extensions that were already in use and that were already very popular
they are ( the millions of connections during the specified time)
Interisle Consulting analysed the log files of one of the internet root-servers.
"The review of the logs revealed that a surprisingly large amount of requests is for domain names under extensions that actually do not yet exist, but that might be created in the future. Most requests where for .com en .net, but in third place there already is the first non-existing extension: .local. This even received over twice as much requests as .org. Problems with .local were however already foreseen as that extension has been blocked from being requested.
But already in 5′th place of all requests to the root-servers is the next non-existing extension; this time one that has been requested to be actually activated within the coming months/years: .home. Interisle reviewed a total of 96 hours of log files and during that period over 1 billion requests where received for .home. Other such examples are .corp (almost 150 million requests), .global (12 million requests) and .med (10 million requests). For all these TLD’s a request is pending to activate them, while clearly some systems currently expect them not to work.
the most important thing is that the article is totally wrong. They say that these extensions don't exist. They do exist and they have already a very popular use in internal networks and the internet of things (home automation for example)
If Icann has already decided that .local would not be used as a public domainextension because it is so widespread on internal networks it should take the same decision for other typical internal and embedded domainextensions like .internal, .corp and .home (and probably I forget a few).
It may be that these domainextensions have at first sight the capacity of bringing in much money and could have some very convincing arguments at first sight, when you think of it, making them public domainextensions is just asking for disaster on a worldwide scale and of consesquences that no one can calculate (in money, in manhours and in practical disruptions).
there is a real security issue
However, as Versign points out, some of these internal networks received digital certificates for their internal TLDs. (An example of a digital certificate is the little lock, or Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), that appears at the bottom of a webpage to indicate that it is safe to complete a financial transaction from that site.) In the example of .home, a disgruntled employee with access to one of the network-specific SSLs on .home could spoof a credential for a website such as Nike.HOME or HSBC.HOME. In the reverse scenario, an employee of a company with an Intranet that uses a soon to be “real” Internet TLD could be vulnerable to an attack if they attempt to access their Intranet version of “.home” while outside of the network.
there is a real judicial issue
who will pay for all the changes and all the mistakes made because of them and the disruptions of business and transactions while the networks that have used a few (of the thousand) generic domainextensions for internal use (i think .med will be used by doctors and hospitals) long before anyone talked about liberating the domainextensions nearly totally (withoiut ever researching which extensions were already in broad use and should have been excluded from the process alltogether the beginning)
and who will be responsable if incidents between private and public networks with the same domainextension happen and there will always be incidents, in IT you can count on that
and what about those who have spent all that money on preparing their case for these domainextensions. Sorry but if you really had researched your case as professionally as you say you are to jump into the domainextension registry business, you should have known. If you were that professional and you know how much money is really involved you should have researched the risks and you should have known that the there would be a big risk that it would be rejected, that a huge part of the internetcommunity would be against it and that there were enormous possbilities of mayhem, lawsuites and mess-ups at the same time.
there are already enough other problems and issues to solve and updates to do every few months to not be forced to change all your internal networksnames and links to be sure that there would be no confusion with a new public domainextension even if that is only in 2015