Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> the introduction
> of new cctld registries has never produced a measurable price movement on
> the existing gTLDs (.to vs. .com, or .com vs. .net for that matter).
Supply
> and demand theory would indicate that as new tlds are made available and
> old tlds are popularized, the price would trend towards zero. To my
> knowledge, this has never occurred.

They key here is that you're comparing .com, a "generic" TLD to
other ccTLDs. You are not comparing it with other "generic" TLDs,
as none have been introduced. You're using one kind of comparison
and presuming that it'll hold true to another. While this does not
make my point, it does not make yours, either.

My point is that the addition of new TLDs of a non-country-code
variety will diminish the value of SLDs under .com, as well as
the new TLDs themselves. As the number of "generic" TLDs
rises, the values will drop. The value of "computer.com" will
go down as the availability of (and here's the key) *marketed*
TLDs rises.

I submit that computer.web is just as valuable as computer.com
if they are the only two. There have been a number of
expensive .net domains that support this statement. If
com/net/web are the only three, then we still have scarcity,
and we have value. Indeed, if the "IAHC 7" were to have
been added, CORE would have found themselves with
a very lucrative scarce resource. The registrars would have
made a killing off of the new and novel TLDs. Be careful
here - if you don't agree that they would have made a killing,
please explain why.

Add 70 instead of 7, and you have a whole new ballgame.

Add 700, and all bets are off.

Christopher