Evan,
Thank you for these comments.
I referred to this document as a "report" because a study would normally include developing some form of a hypothesis, conducting observations and testing the hypothesis, which could lead to a conclusion or additional lines of inquiry. In other words,
the way we would normally seek truth through the scientific method, which unfortunately becomes quite complex in the field of social sciences.
On page 52 of the above linked report, the authors describe a proposed study on resale domains in order to assess the competitive effects of new gTLDs. The study is described as follows:
"A more direct approach would examine sale prices in different gTLDs of a matched sample of second-level domain names. Examination of the same second-level domain name in each gTLD should control for many factors that influence the value of a domain name
and isolate the value of the gTLD itself. Thus the study would shed light on the substitutability or relative value of domain names on different gTLDs and on the extent of competition between gTLDs."
I could be mistaken, but I do not believe that the study described above (or any of the proposed studies described in the economic reports) were conducted because of the manner in which the overall policy development and implementation process unfolded
in practice.
Without getting too deep into the weeds, the Board passed a resolution in 2006 calling for a study regarding "...the concerns relating to the changing domain marketplace and specific concerns....regarding potential abuses of ICANN rules as it relates to
consumer interests". For additional details, see Board minutes here:
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2006-10-18-en
I believe there are a few important complicating factors that arise in this context. One factor relates to the notion that ICANN org (including in some circumstances, its contracted business partners) may have an interest in a study's outcome, or in the
outcome of legal analysis, that may diverge from the interests of the public and community at large.
Correlated to this dynamic is the fact that when one party compensates another party, one can see the proverb of "he who pays the piper calls the tune" becoming relevant.
Of course, this doesn't happen through any type of informal agreement between the parties, but arises because there are implied causes and/or effects that are inherent as an offspring of the relationship between the parties.
To provide an illustrative example, the ePDP team on the Temp Spec retained legal counsel who were compensated by ICANN org. On these types of complex issues of law and fact, where there are no easy answers - and if all else being equal - a law firm, consultant,
or economist may have an incentive to err on the side of its "client's" interests or worldview. Of course, in these cases, the client is ICANN org.
So on that basis, if a study were to be ever performed on ICANN's coordination performance, the domain marketplace and consumers, I would recommend that ICANN org not commission the work, but that a group such as at-large take the helm, if there was adequate
interest, justification and resources to do so.
Finally, in an attempt to bring more color to your line of inquiry, I think some gTLDs have registration requirements regarding the use of domain names which may discourage or prevent the primary use being for resale purposes. For example, I believe <.biz>
has (or had) this type of requirement within its domain registration agreement with registrants, although I'm not sure to what extent the provision is monitored, enforced, or can be effective. Of course, the issue comes full circle back to ICANN's contract
with the registry. So perhaps depending on the form of the registry agreement with ICANN, and the provisions contained therein, the relevant parties' interests, it is conceivable that other (perhaps legacy) registries could apply restrictions on the use of
domains which may affect their resale value and/or potential.
Just food for thought...
Cheers,
Claudio