ICANN posted a follow-up independent economic study, “Economic Considerations in the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names, Phase II.” In the works for several months, the report provides an analysis of potential benefits of new gTLDs, potential costs of new gTLDs, and results from empirical research on the domain names associated with top international brands.
Following their Phase I report, authors Greg Rosston from Stanford University, Michael Katz from the University of California Berkeley and Theresa Sullivan of Compass Lexecon develop and rely on case studies to predict possible benefits of market competition and differentiation derived from new gTLDs and future costs to trademark holders.
Read the full report [PDF, 782 KB].
{ 1 trackback }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Jim Fleming 12.03.10 at 11:25 am
What is the Economic Impact on a U.S. Company such as New.Net ?
http://New.Net
What is the Economic Impact of migrating ALL of the .ORG domains to the *-ORG.COM format ?
http://ICANN-ORG.com
[Note: .ORG is no longer being resolved by many consumer devices]
What is the Economic Impact of mapping the .XXX top level domain to the EXISTING .ORG domains via the TLD Mapping Feature ?
Is the .ORG Registry Afilias still planned to be the .XXX Registry ?
DNSMASQ has a substantial market share in the DNS Resolver market (that matters to consumers). What are the Economic Impacts of changes proposed by ICANN on DNSMASQ deployments ?
OpenDNS has a substantial market share in the DNS Reputation market (that matters to consumers). What are the Economic Impacts of changes proposed by ICANN on OpenDNS deployments ?
Microsoft continues to make progress with their (FREE?) PNRP – Peer-Name-Resolution-Protocol that appears to use the .0 (dot zero) top level domain and IPv6. What is the Economic Impact of IANN policies on all Microsoft users ?
.S.C.U.B.A. DNS is similar to DNSMASQ but resides solely on Self-Contained Unix Broadband Appliances. The Network IS the Registry. There is NO single point of control. Similar to Microsoft’s PNRP, there are no out-dated Root Servers. What is the Economic Impact of ICANN policies on .S.U.B.A. DNS ?
What is the Economic Impact of ICANN continuing to attempt to saddle global societies with out-dated legacy 1980s DNS technology ?
What is the Economic Impact of ICANN policies on PREVENTING more adoption of IPv6 by not cultivating modern DNS technology such as Microsoft’s PNRP ?
What is the Economic Impact of ICANN policies being driven from a very small and narrow-minded collection of ISOC and IETF insiders some of whom have no high-school diploma ?
George Kirikos 12.03.10 at 12:51 pm
Truly, this “study” was completely worthless, and does not make the case for moving forward on new TLDs, and certainly does not support ICANN’s specific plan. Detailed comments at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/msg00015.html
gpmgroup 12.03.10 at 5:27 pm
Just been through it, and very disappointing it is. It hasn’t really considered many of the more profound implications of new gTLDs – a missed opportunity.
Hopefully the timely intervention from the NTIA yesterday on the wider problems surrounding the whole of the new gTLD program will give ICANN the push it needs to look at these economic issues properly!
Also this report seemed to be more noticeably lacking towards the end; I wonder if it was rushed in light of yesterdays NTIA’s comments?
Paul Foody 01.13.11 at 2:47 pm
George Kirikos is absolutely correct. This was a complete waste of time and money.
It is already abundantly clear to ICANN insiders that the new TLDs, as proposed, will simply move the key component of a domain name from the left of the DotCom to the right of the Dot (see Afilias’s Cartagena handouts for the clearest explanation yet of that fact from any ICANN associate). When that fact is recognised by the less well-informed ICANN outsiders, forming the wider business community, the new TLDs will already have replicated the DotCom registry at the registry level.
Accordingly, rather than adding competition, as ICANN was set up to achieve under the 1997 white paper and which ICANN still claims is the goal of it’s new TLD program, the new TLD program will simply result in raising the price of an internet presence from the less than $10 per year price of a DotCom domain, to millions of dollars for a TLD “domain”, with only the same exposure as today’s DotComs.
Simultaneously the right to a new TLD internet presence will be all but limited to those organisations employing most intellectual property lawyers (of which, other than it’s current Chairman, more than a few have been influencing ICANN policy since it’s formation despite the extent to which the profession will benefit from an appreciable percentage of the internet’s $100 trillion value in, otherwise unnecessary, fees should the new TLD program proceed).
That the implications on the global economy of the massive transfer of wealth, from, predominantly, the DotCom registrants, a large proportion of which are North American based, to a tiny number of the worlds largest corporations, none of which have any afiliation to any nation state, remains unexamined years after such concerns were first raised by, amongst others, the US government, is a matter ICANN should be compelled to diligently rectify with immediate effect.
Accordingly the new TLD program should be delayed until such time as the results of such an economic study have been released and their conclusions examined by all affected parties, including ICANN’s employers, the 200 million or so registrants, who have done so much to establish the internet as the vital tool it is today but who are now in real danger of having their interests obliterated by, in my opinion, the very body they have entrusted to safeguard them.
Finally, with the vast majority of the organisations most likely to end up controlling the “new TLD internet” being advised by one of the “big 4″ accountancy firms, in addition to the major economic issue it is currently ignoring, ICANN should also be compelled to examine the impact of the proposed new TLD program not just on freedom of speech but on the very future of democracy itself.
Thanks.