FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.
The ALAC has argued for a range of metrics to be used in assessing the success (or otherwise) of the introduction of new gTLDs under three headings: competition, choice and consumer trust. Prior to the introduction of new gTLDs, the ALAC proposed metrics that should be used in assessing the achievement of consumer trust, as follows:
- End user confusion
- Growth in the use of domain based and not domain based alternatives for Internet resource access
- Complaints to, and action taken in relation to new gTLDs
- Transparency of contact information
- Accuracy of promotion of new gTLDs to end users
- Technical issues encountered.
The ALAC was disappointed that additional metrics were not adopted to fully determine the impact of new gTLDs on one of the three metrics - consumer trust.
Nevertheless, increased competition that leads to a decrease in price and greater choice could be seen to benefit end users. Phase I, undertaken in 2014 with the introduction of the new gTLDs was undertaken to provided a benchmark against which impacts of the new gTLDs can be measured. The Phase II Assessment outcomes, therefore, provide useful information in determining the extent to which new gTLDs have resulted in overall benefits to end users.
The outcomes of Assessment II however are, as best, equivocal. As that Assessment concludes:
While we are unable to draw conclusions about whether the New gTLD Program has caused a change in competition in the domain name marketplace, some of these changes in the past year are consistent with what one would expect to see in a market place with increased competition (P. 2).
The most useful information from Assessment II is about the changes in registry numbers and their share of registrations. Based on the sample of new gTLDs studied [1] the greatest change was in the set of entities included in the largest 15 registries and registrars, and a declide in the share of registrations held by the top 15 registries and registrars between Phase I and Phase II. The largest percent in registry operators was in the Asia Pacific and European regions. Specifically, the top registrar, by share of new gRLD registrations in Phase II went from 2.9% to 24.8% between Phases I and II, with the next largest jump from .0% to 6.3%. (see Table 3D, p 28). Another potentially positive outcome of the study is that new gTLDs target registrants with a variety of interests.(p. 2)
The Study’s conclusions on the impact of new gTLDs on the market was that there was worldwide impact of new gLDs on legacy gTLDs: registration of legacy TLDs ‘followed the same pattern before and after the beginning of the new gTLD program. (P. 53) The studydid observe, however, a decline in both new and legacy gTLDs after the entry of regional TLDs. (p. 53) On on those issues, the study concludes:
We however do not have sufficient data to fully analyze the substitutability of new gTLDs for the legacy TLDs (p. 53)
It is more difficult to draw any conclusions on the impacts of new gTLDs on price. As the Assessment II report notes, requests for current and historical pricing data were sent to all registrars. Only 14 per cent of registration volume of the new gTLD sampled was provided in both Phase I and II. In Phase II, the study had to rely on publicly available retail price data, but, as the report notes, because the researchers had to rely on publicly available data (covering 39 or the 54 registrars) the analysis of retail pricing ‘may not be representative’.(p. 10) The charts on pricing, therefore, are necessarily on “Collected” information. (see charts pp 12-15.)
Clearly, Phase II of this program was carefully done, with as much comparison with Phase I outcomes as could be reasonably be drawn. What the Phase II outcomes do not do, however, is make a clear case for significant benefits arising from increased competition with the introduction of new gTLDs. As the Study itself concludes, they were
… unable to draw conclusions about whether the new gTLD Program has caused a change in competition. (P. 2)
The ALAC, therefore, believes that, until clear evidence of increased choice and consumer trust can be established as arising from the introduction of new gTLDs, the case for introducing more new gTLDs has not been established.
[1] See pp 4-8 on how the sample data of registries/registrars and associated price data was determined.
