DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL 

There was a decrease of around 3.3 million decrease in the number of registrations for 

.com, .net

and 

.org 

in the first half of 2002 

(Table 9)

. The number of 

.com

 registrations during this period was 

especially hard hit, recording a reduction of nearly 2.2 million registrations. Several possible explanations 

exist. The most optimistic scenario would be that users who could not ascertain their preference under one 

of the original gTLDs transferred to a new gTLD. A more pessimistic explanation might be that the end of 

the so called `Internet bubble' led to a significant number of domain names being allowed to lapse. The 

introduction of new gTLDs showed that such a development was possible, a fact that speculators no doubt 

factored into their activities. Some speculators may have allowed a proportion of their registrations to lapse 

in response to a perceived lack of demand or decrease in scarcity. Speculators may have also shifted their 

focus to the new gTLDs prior to demand being tested in that market segment. In any event the primary and 

secondary market for 

.com

, and the other traditional domains, proved to be resilient. Currently 

.com

 names 

still command the highest values followed by 

.net

, some national domains and 

.org

.

20

The market for the original gTLDs registration had recovered within a year. The number of 

registrations under 

.com

 regained an increase in the later half of 2002 and has grown by more than a 

million per half year since that time. 

Registrations under new gTLDs made steady increases, following their introduction, until the final 

quarter of 2003 

(Table 10)

. The proportion of new gTLDs registration among total gTLDs registration also 

grew steadily until the final quarter of 2003 

(Figure 9)

. At the end of 2003, new gTLDs accounted for 

around 6.5% of the total gTLDs registration. On the other hand, the number of registrations under 

.info

and 

.biz

 decreased in December 2003. It is too early to conclude that new gTLDs have reached their peak 

as unofficial data indicated some growth in the first quarter of 2004. However it does raise the question of 

why the original gTLDs continued to grow at a time of a reduction in the number of registrations under 

new gTLDs. One explanation may be that a significant number of registrations, which had been made by 

speculators in the early period of availability, were allowed to lapse.  

Table 8.  The number of gTLDs registrations in bi annual time series 

Total .com .net .org .info .biz .name 

July 2001 

32 079 997 

24 264 064 

4 748 370 

3 067 563 

Jan 2002 

32 339 459 

24 717 455 

4 629 289 

2 992 715 

July 2002 

30 731 874 

22 526 354 

3 907 160 

2 553 817 

926 769 

735 766 

82 008 

Jan 2003 

32 402 140 

23 662 001 

4 060 182 

2 674 286 

1 049 839 

858 945 

96 887 

July 2003 

34 635 853 

25 260 438 

4 226 821 

2 867 551 

1 173 714 

999 009 

108 320 

Dec 2003 

36 851 022 

27 035 869 

4 515 550 

3 015 179 

1 164 136 

1 004 118 

116 170 

Source

: Registries, Monthly Reports and JPNIC.

21

Table 9.  Changes in the number of gTLDs registrations in bi annual time series 

Total 

.com 

.net 

.org 

.info 

.biz 

.name 

Q3 Q4, 2001 

259 462 

453 391 

 119 081 

 74 848 

Q1 Q2, 2002 

 1 607 585 

 2 191 101 

 722 129 

 438 898 

926 769 

735 766 

82 008 

Q3 Q4, 2002 

1 670 266 

1 135 647 

153 022 

120 469 

123 070 

123 179 

14 879 

Q1 Q2, 2003 

2 233 713 

1 598 437 

166 639 

193 265 

123 875 

140 064 

11 433 

Q3 Q4, 2003 

2 215 169 

1 775 431 

288 729 

147 628 

 9 578 

5 109 

7 850 

Source

: Registries Monthly Reports and JPNIC. 

 22