Brussels and Geneva deciding what things are called - even on the web?

Cybersquatting has always been an emotive issue. The idea that someone would maliciously register a domain name to injure reputation - whether of an individual or company - is abhorrent to most.

So far efforts to prevent such action have focussed solely on trademark holders, but moves this week by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the European Commission could herald a new era in domain name battles.

At the beginning of the week WIPO told us it would be widening its dispute procedure to include the names of international organisations and the non-trademark names of drugs such as sildenafenil (the generic term for Viagra).

It also marked out the names of places, ethnic groups, and products which share their names with a place such as champagne or cheddar, as areas of concern - although it admitted the law is still not developed enough to cope.

In a separate move, European politicians spelled out plans to create a veto list of politically embarrassing dot-eu domains.

But once you step outside the legally comfortable world of trademarks, who gets to decide the rules?

What constitutes embarrassing? When does legitimate protest turn into illegal activism? And what gets priority - cheddar cheese or Cheddar Gorge?

As the regulation around the domain name space tightens, the number of unanswered questions simply increases.