Despite months of troubling news from financially wrought Greece, ICANN’s gTLD Reveal last Wednesday shed light on one Greek company who seems willing to gamble on an uncertain future. In a move that signifies a tradition of innovation, Fage Dairy Industry S.A., makers of the popular Fage Greek yogurt, applied for .FAGE.

What’s more, Fage is not only the sole Greek company to apply, but also one of just three applicants from the foods services industry. McDonalds and Heinz applied for .MCD and .MCDONALDS, and .HEINZ and .KETCHUP, respectively. Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Yum Brands, Kraft, Kellogg, General Mills and other similar brands were noticeably absent from Wednesday’s excitement. 

Yet as we take a closer look at Fage’s history, its application becomes less surprising. In under a century, the company has mounted an impressive rise to global dairy-stardom. Founded in 1926 in then-rural Athens, Fage remains family owned and operated. The company began national distribution in 1964, followed by exportation, first to the UK, in 1980. Exports to the U.S. began in the late 1990s, and Fage opened its first American production facility in 2008. In 2011, Fage acheived €385 million in net sales. Theirs is a story of the underdog: a mom-and-pop store that grew to international recognition, and continues to beat out food giants like Kraft and General Mills. 

Today, Fage’s toughest competition is the New York based Chobani. Founded in 2005 by a Turkish immigrant, Chobani currently leads the U.S. yogurt market, but it has nowhere near Fage’s experience and it has only just begun branching out into the international market. Neither Chobani, Oikos by Dannon, nor Athenos by Kraft applied for gTLDs, so it is arguably Fage who holds the title of reigning yogurt champ – at least in the digital sphere. 

Still, if Fage’s application wins points for boldness, we have to ask the obligatory question: what’s next? Part of the problem for the food industry is that, with the exception of specialty delivery services like FreshDirect and Peapod, purchases are rarely made online. How and in what capacity Fage plans to use its gTLD remains unclear, but we’re willing to guess it could become a powerful marketing tool.

It’s true that Fage could potentially face significant challenges in its Greek production centers and global supply chain, given the economic turmoil.  But the company’s presence in the gTLD frontier conveys its willingness to continue taking risks and building its brand. 

As many of us are preparing our comments on ICANN’s latest new TLD guidebook, many companies are also trying to determine if they will actually apply for a new TLD if they arrive as scheduled by ICANN in May of 2011. 

Even though many of the previously launched “new TLDs” did not bring about a meaningful shift in online consumer behavior, there is a shared concern among digital executives over not knowing what will happen with this launch, or what the appropriate action will be.

Imagine if Facebook is one company that applies for a new TLD in the first round.  It might make sense; Facebook has had its fair share of username and security issues and Facebook users spend more time on facebook.com than any other site.  The possibility of creating .FACEBOOK domains for each user, such as PhilLodico.facebook, might be interesting to Facebook and it would likely be valued by users as well.

Facebook alone has over 500 million users.  That would translate to 500 million new domain names; tripling the number of domain names in existence overnight.

Now imagine adding in other Internet powerhouses like Google, Microsoft and Apple, and big brands like Coca-Cola, Disney and others.  These companies have enormous reach in terms of customer touch points, not to mention budgets with which – if they wanted to – they could try to shift consumer behavior. 

Between Facebook’s grassroots consumer behavior shift and a possible direct marketing program by brand leaders, there is no question; there is a chance that new TLDs will catch on.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could sit on the side and wait and see what other companies do?  To see if Facebook does this?  To see if 500 million new domain names are registered and to see what consumers begin to do.  It would.  But ICANN isn’t necessarily going to allow that to happen.

The biggest risk that new TLDs (if approved) present is that we only know that there will be one window that opens.  The last time a window opened was seven years ago. What if ICANN gets overwhelmed with this launch?  What if it takes years to process the 500 applications that they are talking about possibly receiving?  What if ICANN is prevented from moving forward with another window because of abuse found in the space?  What if it is 3, 5, or 7 years until the next window opens?

What happens to the brand owners that decided to wait on the sideline if new TLDs begin to catch on?  Those that did apply will have the ultimate competitive advantage while those who didn’t will be sitting on the bench waiting for their chance to play catch up.

While I believe there is still an opportunity to alter if and how new TLDs will be released, this risk of being sidelined is one we all need to take seriously.  And as ICANN has shown us, we need to start thinking about this soon.

Yesterday I was an in-studio guest for the Kojo Nnamdi Show on WAMU 88.5 American University Radio.  Every Tuesday, Kojo covers different tech-related topics, and yesterday’s show focused on new top-level domain names and what they will mean for Internet users.  Tina Dam, ICANN’s Senior Director of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), and Evgeny Morozov, a visiting scholar in the Program on Liberation Technology at Stanford University and Contributing Editor at Foreign Policy Magazine also appeared on the program with me.

Much of the discussion centered around new IDNs, and the benefits and risks associated with expanding the domain name space to include extensions in non-Latin scripts.  We also talked a good deal about new generic TLDs (gTLDs) and the impact they would have on both businesses and everyday Internet users, including increased opportunities for cybersquatting.  I also broke the news to Kojo that a third party owns KojoNnamdi.com, much to his disappointment.

Overall, I thought it was a good discussion; I did butt heads a few times with Tina Dam, but the conversation was productive.  I’m thankful to have had the opportunity to go on WAMU to discuss some of these issues, although I would have liked to talk a little bit more about ICANN transparency and accountability before time ran out.

One thing that stuck out to me during the interview was a comment that a local listener had sent in over email during the show.  She runs a small business and owns her business name in .COM, but is concerned that with the flood of new gTLDs, she will have to spend a lot of money registering her domain across new extensions.  Tina Dam just brushed off this woman’s concerns, saying she already had her piece of the Internet and really wouldn’t have to worry about new TLDs.  Clearly Dam doesn’t understand the extent of cybersquatting and the importance of defensive registration, especially for smaller businesses that likely do not own trademarks.  But what was more upsetting was that her response is really reflective of ICANN’s attitude toward small businesses – they continue to overlook the interests of the little guy, not only small business owners but Internet users as a whole.

I just finished a conversation with a contact who is still at the ICANN meeting in Brussels.  He attended the ICANN Public Forum and let me know that in his opinion it looks like the .XXX gTLD, an extension dedicated to hosting adult content, should be approved soon.  Overall, he said, there was very little objection from the forum attendees.  In fact, the discussion lasted only about 20 minutes.  I can’t say I expected much more – many people who attend ICANN meetings and participate in the ICANN process are, generally speaking, either interested in selling more and more domain names (like registrars), or are totally oblivious to the ICANN community’s bias toward selling more names.

On the other hand, I heard the discussion over whether or not ICANN’s Chairman of the Board should earn a $75,000 salary lasted a full 45 minutes.