Both Russell and I have said we don’t like the idea of the .mobi top-level domain. It’s the wrong solution to the wrong question — while mobile Web usability is an issue, it’s not one of mobile-only sites vs. powerful mobile browsers. The way forward is a better understanding of Web and information design for mobile users, coupled with a smart browser, that gives them access to whatever content they want — not just content created specifically for mobile devices.

Now, .mobi threatens all that. We’ve questioned the idea of creating a “mobiles only” part of the Web, but now it’s even worse: unlike any other top-level domain, owners of .mobi sites will be forced to follow a set of “best practices”, which the .mobi administrator, mTLD, will develop along with the W3C. This could set a dangerous and, frankly, stupid precedent that allows TLD administrators and registrars to be the arbiters of content and conduct on the Web.

The implications for mobile are a little different. mTLD says the motivation for .mobi is to “enhance and improve the ease of use of Internet-based mobile data services through discoverability and predictability, as well as, speed and delivery to market.” That sounds really nice, but it’s a bunch of bull. Adding another domain doesn’t make things easier at all for end users. All it does is add another possibility users will have to remember when hunting for somebody’s mobile site — is it mobile.XYZ.com, or wap.XYZ.com, or XYZ.com/mobile or XYZ.mobi?

.mobi really is a wolf in the sheep’s clothing of usability. Look at the companies behind the proposal and mTLD: three infrastructure and device manufacturers, then the GSM Association — the trade group of GSM carriers — and five major operators: 3, Vodafone, T-Mobile, Telecom Italia Mobile and Telefonica Moviles. The operators will use .mobi and the usability red herring as the basis for the next generation of walled gardens.

The argument will be “We only want users to access sites on their mobile devices where they’ll have a good user experience. Therefore, they’ll only be able to access our own portal, and .mobi sites.” Why would they do this? Because through the “best practices” owners of .mobi sites must follow or lose their domain, they can exercise control over the content people view — and more easily bill for it. And by limiting access to content that follows the rules laid down by this supposedly impartial third party that says it’s beholden just to users’ best interests, they can avoid the claims of unfairness that dog letting people access content only from providers that have paid for portal placement.

“You can’t access that content you want because we’re looking out for your best interest,” will be the party line.

It’s great to act as if you’re concerned about usability, but .mobi won’t do anything for end users. It’s just a trojan horse for operators to, yet again, try to exert unwanted control over what their users do. Having to give their users open, unfettered access to the Internet is most operators’ worst nightmares, but it’s the consequence of trying to be both the bit pipe and the content provider. It’s so typical of operator thinking — instead of doing anything to make their services better so people will choose to use them, they just try to eliminate the choice altogether. .mobi is a trojan horse designed to do just that.