Today's call and the ccTLD/gTLD trends/Following ccTLDs on DNS Abuse
There has been an ongoing new registrations trend with more new ccTLD registrations than gTLD registrations in many countries. It started back around 2005 but it has been accelerating for the last few years. In some countries, the number of new ccTLD registrations each month is often double that of the gTLDs. The non-core gTLDs (i.e not .COM and to a lesser extent .NET and .ORG) still have their historical shares of country level markets but there is a very obvious shift. There is also a related trend where people register their domain name in the ccTLD and do not bother registering it in .COM or any gTLD. The increasing "uniqueness" of ccTLD registrations is also obvious with some ccTLDs. There are phases for a country's domain name market development. The early phase involves early adopters setting up websites to sell outside the country. Traditionally, the local Internet and hosting infrastructure was not well developed so most sites were hosted outside the country and there are few if any gTLD registrars in the country. The ccTLD, in this phase, often finds it difficult to complete with gTLDs in terms of both registration fee and ease of registration. As the country's market develops, along with the Intenet and hosting infrastructure, companies begin to host locally and local gTLD registrars appear along with more local ccTLD registrars. (The model may shift from a registry as registar one to a more typical registry-registrar one.) With a mature market, the ccTLD dominates the market with there being more ccTLD registrars than local gTLD registrars and new ccTLD registrations overtake new gTLDs registrations each month. Rather than becoming an ICANN accredited registrar, resellers/hosters will decide to become a ccTLD accredited registrar and outsource gTLD registrations to a registrations as a service provider like some of the large gTLD registrars. A lot of the countries with strong ccTLDs are in this phase of development. ICANN's registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but is out of place in current the global domain name market. This will have a major impact on any geo-gTLD applications in the next round of new gTLDs. If the registrar infrastructure to sell locally is not there, then these new geo-gTLDs will find it very difficult to gain market share. Perhaps an even more worrying possibility for the next round is that the market for some prospective gTLDs does not exist or is much smaller than these applicants expect. Even with .COM, the market is still dominanted by the early markets and countries with large hosting operations. These are the countries with most .COM websites by country resolved IP address. They are also skewed by large DDoS prevention operators like Cloudflare using US IPs. | United States | 99763877 | | Germany | 7663915 | | Canada | 3873167 | | Seychelles | 3765103 | | China | 2757786 | | France | 2487080 | | Japan | 2028834 | | United Kingdom | 1786066 | | Netherlands | 1707633 | | Virgin Islands (UK) | 1330498 | The Seychelles are largely Chinese/Hong Kong sites on Seychelles IP addesses that have been acquired by Chinese operators. The Virgin Islands sites are typically PPC parking and sales. The distribution of .AFRICA sites is interesting in that South Africa leads with the marjority of sites. | South Africa | 10673 | | United States | 7936 | | France | 1943 | | Germany | 1572 | | Canada | 864 | | United Kingdom | 741 | | Switzerland | 232 | | Netherlands | 192 | | Morocco | 124 | | Poland | 90 | The .BERLIN gTLD is one of the better performers of the 2012 round and is closer to being a ccTLD in terms of distribution (as is .AFRICA). | Germany | 37381 | | France | 3852 | | United States | 2699 | | Denmark | 429 | | Switzerland | 225 | | Austria | 215 | | United Kingdom | 189 | | Canada | 162 | | Poland | 159 | | Hold/Expired | 104 | ALAC may not need to comment on the above but it needs to be aware that the market for domain names and websites is continually changing and is much more complex than the ICANN registry transactions reports suggest. Another interesting point was made by Michael Palage about following ccTLD registries on best practice on DNS Abuse, registrant verification and data quality. This is a very good idea and will save ICANN/GNSO/ALAC from wasting time trying to reinvent the wheel. The important thing to remember is that ccTLDs are very different markets to gTLDs and the ccTLD registries are often well ahead of ICANN on some of these issues (Know Your Customer is a big topic at the moment). We should steer well clear of basing any recommendations on that EU DNS report as it is flawed in conflating ccTLD DNS Abuse with gTLD DNS Abuse. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Thanks John AS I said in the chat, this raises important issues. The standout for me is clearly that ccTLD registrations are not covered by RAA/RA agreements with their safeguards. Think of the work CPWG has done on the EPDP on data protection - and whether/to what extent/ decisions will bind ccTLD operators. Or think the transfer policy and the discussions on the safeguards that we are supporting. Maybe we need a discussion on the consumer protections CPWG has been working on - and the extent to which they will be in place globally. Holly
On Apr 28, 2022, at 2:34 AM, John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
There has been an ongoing new registrations trend with more new ccTLD registrations than gTLD registrations in many countries. It started back around 2005 but it has been accelerating for the last few years.
In some countries, the number of new ccTLD registrations each month is often double that of the gTLDs. The non-core gTLDs (i.e not .COM and to a lesser extent .NET and .ORG) still have their historical shares of country level markets but there is a very obvious shift. There is also a related trend where people register their domain name in the ccTLD and do not bother registering it in .COM or any gTLD. The increasing "uniqueness" of ccTLD registrations is also obvious with some ccTLDs.
There are phases for a country's domain name market development. The early phase involves early adopters setting up websites to sell outside the country. Traditionally, the local Internet and hosting infrastructure was not well developed so most sites were hosted outside the country and there are few if any gTLD registrars in the country. The ccTLD, in this phase, often finds it difficult to complete with gTLDs in terms of both registration fee and ease of registration.
As the country's market develops, along with the Intenet and hosting infrastructure, companies begin to host locally and local gTLD registrars appear along with more local ccTLD registrars. (The model may shift from a registry as registar one to a more typical registry-registrar one.)
With a mature market, the ccTLD dominates the market with there being more ccTLD registrars than local gTLD registrars and new ccTLD registrations overtake new gTLDs registrations each month. Rather than becoming an ICANN accredited registrar, resellers/hosters will decide to become a ccTLD accredited registrar and outsource gTLD registrations to a registrations as a service provider like some of the large gTLD registrars. A lot of the countries with strong ccTLDs are in this phase of development.
ICANN's registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but is out of place in current the global domain name market. This will have a major impact on any geo-gTLD applications in the next round of new gTLDs. If the registrar infrastructure to sell locally is not there, then these new geo-gTLDs will find it very difficult to gain market share. Perhaps an even more worrying possibility for the next round is that the market for some prospective gTLDs does not exist or is much smaller than these applicants expect.
Even with .COM, the market is still dominanted by the early markets and countries with large hosting operations. These are the countries with most .COM websites by country resolved IP address. They are also skewed by large DDoS prevention operators like Cloudflare using US IPs.
| United States | 99763877 | | Germany | 7663915 | | Canada | 3873167 | | Seychelles | 3765103 | | China | 2757786 | | France | 2487080 | | Japan | 2028834 | | United Kingdom | 1786066 | | Netherlands | 1707633 | | Virgin Islands (UK) | 1330498 |
The Seychelles are largely Chinese/Hong Kong sites on Seychelles IP addesses that have been acquired by Chinese operators. The Virgin Islands sites are typically PPC parking and sales.
The distribution of .AFRICA sites is interesting in that South Africa leads with the marjority of sites.
| South Africa | 10673 | | United States | 7936 | | France | 1943 | | Germany | 1572 | | Canada | 864 | | United Kingdom | 741 | | Switzerland | 232 | | Netherlands | 192 | | Morocco | 124 | | Poland | 90 |
The .BERLIN gTLD is one of the better performers of the 2012 round and is closer to being a ccTLD in terms of distribution (as is .AFRICA).
| Germany | 37381 | | France | 3852 | | United States | 2699 | | Denmark | 429 | | Switzerland | 225 | | Austria | 215 | | United Kingdom | 189 | | Canada | 162 | | Poland | 159 | | Hold/Expired | 104 |
ALAC may not need to comment on the above but it needs to be aware that the market for domain names and websites is continually changing and is much more complex than the ICANN registry transactions reports suggest.
Another interesting point was made by Michael Palage about following ccTLD registries on best practice on DNS Abuse, registrant verification and data quality. This is a very good idea and will save ICANN/GNSO/ALAC from wasting time trying to reinvent the wheel.
The important thing to remember is that ccTLDs are very different markets to gTLDs and the ccTLD registries are often well ahead of ICANN on some of these issues (Know Your Customer is a big topic at the moment). We should steer well clear of basing any recommendations on that EU DNS report as it is flawed in conflating ccTLD DNS Abuse with gTLD DNS Abuse.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On 28/04/2022 01:56, Holly Raiche wrote:
Thanks John
AS I said in the chat, this raises important issues.
The standout for me is clearly that ccTLD registrations are not covered by RAA/RA agreements with their safeguards. Think of the work CPWG has done on the EPDP on data protection - and whether/to what extent/ decisions will bind ccTLD operators. Or think the transfer policy and the discussions on the safeguards that we are supporting.
Maybe we need a discussion on the consumer protections CPWG has been working on - and the extent to which they will be in place globally.
A charter of universal registrant rights would be a good thing, Holly, The problem with ccTLDs is that the market is even more complex than gTLDs in that some registries are both registry and sole registrar, others have a conventional registry-registrar model and some of the repurposed ccTLDs have outsourced their registry/registrar operations. Some of the ccTLDs are well ahead of the gTLDs in terms of registrant rights and procedures but others are not due to their zones being quite small. At one of end of the ccTLD market, there are players like .DE, .UK and .CN with millions of registrations. At the other, there are small ccTLD registries with a few thousand registrations and still being run from the Computer Science departments of universities. For one of the monthly reports that I publish, I had to identify web hosing brands based on the ccTLD registrars (difficult), gTLD registrars (easy enough). While there are only around 800 retail gTLD registrars, there are thousands of ccTLD registrars. The hosting brands (registrars and large brands) cover approximately 95% of .COM registrations. The off-registrar hosters cover approximately 24% of the market. Most of the ccTLD registries have their own ways of doing things but they might be open to a discussion on the matter. It would be a diplomatic nightmare as ccTLD registries are very different to gTLD registries. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Interesting data. Thanks John. I posit that the move to ccTLDs is something larger than ICANN and beyond its control, attached to a general global attitude moving from globalization to nationalism. We see it in politics, as recently as the stronger-than-ever nationalist support seen in the recent French election. But it's showing up everywhere, with the election of nativist politicians and policies (ie Brexit and of course Russia). Of course there are other factors, such as the greater likelihood that the domain that you want is available in your own national ccTLD rather than a legacy generic. This would be especially true in the case of registries that impose a local presence by the registrant. And it helps that some registries are getting sophisticated and engaging in active marketing, for example ads like this one <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L49a-GSGa7k> and this one <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodN9r6QuPY> being run by the Canadian ccTLD. As has been mentioned before, ICANN has no authority over ccTLD policy, so talk here of consumer protections for them is a non-starter. However, ICANN (and its community) have both an interest and a duty to have a public that is aware of the differences between the domains that it regulates(*) and those it does not. I recall trying to sound an alarm some years back when Godaddy swas aggressively marketing .CO domains as a "seamless" alternative to .COMs, that the public had no idea that one was under international rules and one was under Colombian rules. Nobody cared. So the public remained clueless about the distinction and it generally remains clueless to this day. (Impress your friends with the useless trivia that their use of a public URL shortener likely involves Internet traffic to Libya...) ICANN hasn't made a bad effort of informing the public of the differences between Gs and CCs, it has made no effort at all. Not even the minimum -- a gap analysis that clearly indicates the policy differences between ICANN and the various CC registries. If it does exist it's well buried. Perhaps this remains a public information mandate which ALAC could advocate needs to be resourced. Never too late. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 (*) Yeah yeah, ICANN says it's not a regulator. But it walks like a regulator and quacks like a regulator; nobody is fooled by this. ICANN's lawyers can bite me. On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:35 PM John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
There has been an ongoing new registrations trend with more new ccTLD registrations than gTLD registrations in many countries. It started back around 2005 but it has been accelerating for the last few years.
In some countries, the number of new ccTLD registrations each month is often double that of the gTLDs. The non-core gTLDs (i.e not .COM and to a lesser extent .NET and .ORG) still have their historical shares of country level markets but there is a very obvious shift. There is also a related trend where people register their domain name in the ccTLD and do not bother registering it in .COM or any gTLD. The increasing "uniqueness" of ccTLD registrations is also obvious with some ccTLDs.
There are phases for a country's domain name market development. The early phase involves early adopters setting up websites to sell outside the country. Traditionally, the local Internet and hosting infrastructure was not well developed so most sites were hosted outside the country and there are few if any gTLD registrars in the country. The ccTLD, in this phase, often finds it difficult to complete with gTLDs in terms of both registration fee and ease of registration.
As the country's market develops, along with the Intenet and hosting infrastructure, companies begin to host locally and local gTLD registrars appear along with more local ccTLD registrars. (The model may shift from a registry as registar one to a more typical registry-registrar one.)
With a mature market, the ccTLD dominates the market with there being more ccTLD registrars than local gTLD registrars and new ccTLD registrations overtake new gTLDs registrations each month. Rather than becoming an ICANN accredited registrar, resellers/hosters will decide to become a ccTLD accredited registrar and outsource gTLD registrations to a registrations as a service provider like some of the large gTLD registrars. A lot of the countries with strong ccTLDs are in this phase of development.
ICANN's registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but is out of place in current the global domain name market. This will have a major impact on any geo-gTLD applications in the next round of new gTLDs. If the registrar infrastructure to sell locally is not there, then these new geo-gTLDs will find it very difficult to gain market share. Perhaps an even more worrying possibility for the next round is that the market for some prospective gTLDs does not exist or is much smaller than these applicants expect.
Even with .COM, the market is still dominanted by the early markets and countries with large hosting operations. These are the countries with most .COM websites by country resolved IP address. They are also skewed by large DDoS prevention operators like Cloudflare using US IPs.
| United States | 99763877 | | Germany | 7663915 | | Canada | 3873167 | | Seychelles | 3765103 | | China | 2757786 | | France | 2487080 | | Japan | 2028834 | | United Kingdom | 1786066 | | Netherlands | 1707633 | | Virgin Islands (UK) | 1330498 |
The Seychelles are largely Chinese/Hong Kong sites on Seychelles IP addesses that have been acquired by Chinese operators. The Virgin Islands sites are typically PPC parking and sales.
The distribution of .AFRICA sites is interesting in that South Africa leads with the marjority of sites.
| South Africa | 10673 | | United States | 7936 | | France | 1943 | | Germany | 1572 | | Canada | 864 | | United Kingdom | 741 | | Switzerland | 232 | | Netherlands | 192 | | Morocco | 124 | | Poland | 90 |
The .BERLIN gTLD is one of the better performers of the 2012 round and is closer to being a ccTLD in terms of distribution (as is .AFRICA).
| Germany | 37381 | | France | 3852 | | United States | 2699 | | Denmark | 429 | | Switzerland | 225 | | Austria | 215 | | United Kingdom | 189 | | Canada | 162 | | Poland | 159 | | Hold/Expired | 104 |
ALAC may not need to comment on the above but it needs to be aware that the market for domain names and websites is continually changing and is much more complex than the ICANN registry transactions reports suggest.
Another interesting point was made by Michael Palage about following ccTLD registries on best practice on DNS Abuse, registrant verification and data quality. This is a very good idea and will save ICANN/GNSO/ALAC from wasting time trying to reinvent the wheel.
The important thing to remember is that ccTLDs are very different markets to gTLDs and the ccTLD registries are often well ahead of ICANN on some of these issues (Know Your Customer is a big topic at the moment). We should steer well clear of basing any recommendations on that EU DNS report as it is flawed in conflating ccTLD DNS Abuse with gTLD DNS Abuse.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi all Building on Evan’s comment here: As has been mentioned before, ICANN has no authority over ccTLD policy, so talk here of consumer protections for them is a non-starter. As we all know, some ccTLDs have consumer protection mechanisms. I wonder whether we can make an effort in involving in At-Large local consumer protection bodies that have ccTLDs in their scope. In the early days of ALAC I tried this, but consumer protection organisations were not attaching any importance to domain names policies. Maybe the time has changed. Or maybe we do have such efforts in place and I am not aware of. Cheers, Roberto On 28.04.2022, at 09:28, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Interesting data. Thanks John. I posit that the move to ccTLDs is something larger than ICANN and beyond its control, attached to a general global attitude moving from globalization to nationalism. We see it in politics, as recently as the stronger-than-ever nationalist support seen in the recent French election. But it's showing up everywhere, with the election of nativist politicians and policies (ie Brexit and of course Russia). Of course there are other factors, such as the greater likelihood that the domain that you want is available in your own national ccTLD rather than a legacy generic. This would be especially true in the case of registries that impose a local presence by the registrant. And it helps that some registries are getting sophisticated and engaging in active marketing, for example ads like this one<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L49a-GSGa7k> and this one<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodN9r6QuPY> being run by the Canadian ccTLD. As has been mentioned before, ICANN has no authority over ccTLD policy, so talk here of consumer protections for them is a non-starter. However, ICANN (and its community) have both an interest and a duty to have a public that is aware of the differences between the domains that it regulates(*) and those it does not. I recall trying to sound an alarm some years back when Godaddy swas aggressively marketing .CO domains as a "seamless" alternative to .COMs, that the public had no idea that one was under international rules and one was under Colombian rules. Nobody cared. So the public remained clueless about the distinction and it generally remains clueless to this day. (Impress your friends with the useless trivia that their use of a public URL shortener likely involves Internet traffic to Libya...) ICANN hasn't made a bad effort of informing the public of the differences between Gs and CCs, it has made no effort at all. Not even the minimum -- a gap analysis that clearly indicates the policy differences between ICANN and the various CC registries. If it does exist it's well buried. Perhaps this remains a public information mandate which ALAC could advocate needs to be resourced. Never too late. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 (*) Yeah yeah, ICANN says it's not a regulator. But it walks like a regulator and quacks like a regulator; nobody is fooled by this. ICANN's lawyers can bite me. On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:35 PM John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: There has been an ongoing new registrations trend with more new ccTLD registrations than gTLD registrations in many countries. It started back around 2005 but it has been accelerating for the last few years. In some countries, the number of new ccTLD registrations each month is often double that of the gTLDs. The non-core gTLDs (i.e not .COM and to a lesser extent .NET and .ORG) still have their historical shares of country level markets but there is a very obvious shift. There is also a related trend where people register their domain name in the ccTLD and do not bother registering it in .COM or any gTLD. The increasing "uniqueness" of ccTLD registrations is also obvious with some ccTLDs. There are phases for a country's domain name market development. The early phase involves early adopters setting up websites to sell outside the country. Traditionally, the local Internet and hosting infrastructure was not well developed so most sites were hosted outside the country and there are few if any gTLD registrars in the country. The ccTLD, in this phase, often finds it difficult to complete with gTLDs in terms of both registration fee and ease of registration. As the country's market develops, along with the Intenet and hosting infrastructure, companies begin to host locally and local gTLD registrars appear along with more local ccTLD registrars. (The model may shift from a registry as registar one to a more typical registry-registrar one.) With a mature market, the ccTLD dominates the market with there being more ccTLD registrars than local gTLD registrars and new ccTLD registrations overtake new gTLDs registrations each month. Rather than becoming an ICANN accredited registrar, resellers/hosters will decide to become a ccTLD accredited registrar and outsource gTLD registrations to a registrations as a service provider like some of the large gTLD registrars. A lot of the countries with strong ccTLDs are in this phase of development. ICANN's registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but is out of place in current the global domain name market. This will have a major impact on any geo-gTLD applications in the next round of new gTLDs. If the registrar infrastructure to sell locally is not there, then these new geo-gTLDs will find it very difficult to gain market share. Perhaps an even more worrying possibility for the next round is that the market for some prospective gTLDs does not exist or is much smaller than these applicants expect. Even with .COM, the market is still dominanted by the early markets and countries with large hosting operations. These are the countries with most .COM websites by country resolved IP address. They are also skewed by large DDoS prevention operators like Cloudflare using US IPs. | United States | 99763877 | | Germany | 7663915 | | Canada | 3873167 | | Seychelles | 3765103 | | China | 2757786 | | France | 2487080 | | Japan | 2028834 | | United Kingdom | 1786066 | | Netherlands | 1707633 | | Virgin Islands (UK) | 1330498 | The Seychelles are largely Chinese/Hong Kong sites on Seychelles IP addesses that have been acquired by Chinese operators. The Virgin Islands sites are typically PPC parking and sales. The distribution of .AFRICA sites is interesting in that South Africa leads with the marjority of sites. | South Africa | 10673 | | United States | 7936 | | France | 1943 | | Germany | 1572 | | Canada | 864 | | United Kingdom | 741 | | Switzerland | 232 | | Netherlands | 192 | | Morocco | 124 | | Poland | 90 | The .BERLIN gTLD is one of the better performers of the 2012 round and is closer to being a ccTLD in terms of distribution (as is .AFRICA). | Germany | 37381 | | France | 3852 | | United States | 2699 | | Denmark | 429 | | Switzerland | 225 | | Austria | 215 | | United Kingdom | 189 | | Canada | 162 | | Poland | 159 | | Hold/Expired | 104 | ALAC may not need to comment on the above but it needs to be aware that the market for domain names and websites is continually changing and is much more complex than the ICANN registry transactions reports suggest. Another interesting point was made by Michael Palage about following ccTLD registries on best practice on DNS Abuse, registrant verification and data quality. This is a very good idea and will save ICANN/GNSO/ALAC from wasting time trying to reinvent the wheel. The important thing to remember is that ccTLDs are very different markets to gTLDs and the ccTLD registries are often well ahead of ICANN on some of these issues (Know Your Customer is a big topic at the moment). We should steer well clear of basing any recommendations on that EU DNS report as it is flawed in conflating ccTLD DNS Abuse with gTLD DNS Abuse. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com<mailto:jmcc@hosterstats.com> MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com<http://hosterstats.com/> ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Evan and Roberto I think times have changed, an I think it does need discussion. I”m not quite as pessimistic as Evan (yet!) Holly
On Apr 28, 2022, at 6:11 PM, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all
Building on Evan’s comment here:
As has been mentioned before, ICANN has no authority over ccTLD policy, so talk here of consumer protections for them is a non-starter.
As we all know, some ccTLDs have consumer protection mechanisms. I wonder whether we can make an effort in involving in At-Large local consumer protection bodies that have ccTLDs in their scope. In the early days of ALAC I tried this, but consumer protection organisations were not attaching any importance to domain names policies. Maybe the time has changed. Or maybe we do have such efforts in place and I am not aware of.
Cheers, Roberto
On 28.04.2022, at 09:28, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote:
Interesting data. Thanks John.
I posit that the move to ccTLDs is something larger than ICANN and beyond its control, attached to a general global attitude moving from globalization to nationalism.
We see it in politics, as recently as the stronger-than-ever nationalist support seen in the recent French election. But it's showing up everywhere, with the election of nativist politicians and policies (ie Brexit and of course Russia). Of course there are other factors, such as the greater likelihood that the domain that you want is available in your own national ccTLD rather than a legacy generic. This would be especially true in the case of registries that impose a local presence by the registrant. And it helps that some registries are getting sophisticated and engaging in active marketing, for example ads like this one <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L49a-GSGa7k> and this one <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodN9r6QuPY> being run by the Canadian ccTLD.
As has been mentioned before, ICANN has no authority over ccTLD policy, so talk here of consumer protections for them is a non-starter. However, ICANN (and its community) have both an interest and a duty to have a public that is aware of the differences between the domains that it regulates(*) and those it does not. I recall trying to sound an alarm some years back when Godaddy swas aggressively marketing .CO domains as a "seamless" alternative to .COMs, that the public had no idea that one was under international rules and one was under Colombian rules.
Nobody cared. So the public remained clueless about the distinction and it generally remains clueless to this day.
(Impress your friends with the useless trivia that their use of a public URL shortener likely involves Internet traffic to Libya...)
ICANN hasn't made a bad effort of informing the public of the differences between Gs and CCs, it has made no effort at all. Not even the minimum -- a gap analysis that clearly indicates the policy differences between ICANN and the various CC registries. If it does exist it's well buried.
Perhaps this remains a public information mandate which ALAC could advocate needs to be resourced. Never too late.
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
(*) Yeah yeah, ICANN says it's not a regulator. But it walks like a regulator and quacks like a regulator; nobody is fooled by this. ICANN's lawyers can bite me.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:35 PM John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: There has been an ongoing new registrations trend with more new ccTLD registrations than gTLD registrations in many countries. It started back around 2005 but it has been accelerating for the last few years.
In some countries, the number of new ccTLD registrations each month is often double that of the gTLDs. The non-core gTLDs (i.e not .COM and to a lesser extent .NET and .ORG) still have their historical shares of country level markets but there is a very obvious shift. There is also a related trend where people register their domain name in the ccTLD and do not bother registering it in .COM or any gTLD. The increasing "uniqueness" of ccTLD registrations is also obvious with some ccTLDs.
There are phases for a country's domain name market development. The early phase involves early adopters setting up websites to sell outside the country. Traditionally, the local Internet and hosting infrastructure was not well developed so most sites were hosted outside the country and there are few if any gTLD registrars in the country. The ccTLD, in this phase, often finds it difficult to complete with gTLDs in terms of both registration fee and ease of registration.
As the country's market develops, along with the Intenet and hosting infrastructure, companies begin to host locally and local gTLD registrars appear along with more local ccTLD registrars. (The model may shift from a registry as registar one to a more typical registry-registrar one.)
With a mature market, the ccTLD dominates the market with there being more ccTLD registrars than local gTLD registrars and new ccTLD registrations overtake new gTLDs registrations each month. Rather than becoming an ICANN accredited registrar, resellers/hosters will decide to become a ccTLD accredited registrar and outsource gTLD registrations to a registrations as a service provider like some of the large gTLD registrars. A lot of the countries with strong ccTLDs are in this phase of development.
ICANN's registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but is out of place in current the global domain name market. This will have a major impact on any geo-gTLD applications in the next round of new gTLDs. If the registrar infrastructure to sell locally is not there, then these new geo-gTLDs will find it very difficult to gain market share. Perhaps an even more worrying possibility for the next round is that the market for some prospective gTLDs does not exist or is much smaller than these applicants expect.
Even with .COM, the market is still dominanted by the early markets and countries with large hosting operations. These are the countries with most .COM websites by country resolved IP address. They are also skewed by large DDoS prevention operators like Cloudflare using US IPs.
| United States | 99763877 | | Germany | 7663915 | | Canada | 3873167 | | Seychelles | 3765103 | | China | 2757786 | | France | 2487080 | | Japan | 2028834 | | United Kingdom | 1786066 | | Netherlands | 1707633 | | Virgin Islands (UK) | 1330498 |
The Seychelles are largely Chinese/Hong Kong sites on Seychelles IP addesses that have been acquired by Chinese operators. The Virgin Islands sites are typically PPC parking and sales.
The distribution of .AFRICA sites is interesting in that South Africa leads with the marjority of sites.
| South Africa | 10673 | | United States | 7936 | | France | 1943 | | Germany | 1572 | | Canada | 864 | | United Kingdom | 741 | | Switzerland | 232 | | Netherlands | 192 | | Morocco | 124 | | Poland | 90 |
The .BERLIN gTLD is one of the better performers of the 2012 round and is closer to being a ccTLD in terms of distribution (as is .AFRICA).
| Germany | 37381 | | France | 3852 | | United States | 2699 | | Denmark | 429 | | Switzerland | 225 | | Austria | 215 | | United Kingdom | 189 | | Canada | 162 | | Poland | 159 | | Hold/Expired | 104 |
ALAC may not need to comment on the above but it needs to be aware that the market for domain names and websites is continually changing and is much more complex than the ICANN registry transactions reports suggest.
Another interesting point was made by Michael Palage about following ccTLD registries on best practice on DNS Abuse, registrant verification and data quality. This is a very good idea and will save ICANN/GNSO/ALAC from wasting time trying to reinvent the wheel.
The important thing to remember is that ccTLDs are very different markets to gTLDs and the ccTLD registries are often well ahead of ICANN on some of these issues (Know Your Customer is a big topic at the moment). We should steer well clear of basing any recommendations on that EU DNS report as it is flawed in conflating ccTLD DNS Abuse with gTLD DNS Abuse.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com <mailto:jmcc@hosterstats.com> MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ <http://www.hosterstats.com/> 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO <https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO> IE * Skype: hosterstats.com <http://hosterstats.com/> **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Holly, I was deliberately seeking not to be pessimistic (this time!), so much as to outline the current reality and propose action with a chance of success. ICANN has very little leverage over ccTLDs and is unlikely to gain voluntary acceptance of its oversight. Rather than aim for that (IMO) impossible goal, I am advocating that ICANN play a vital role in public education, something it is very capable of doing without consent of the CC registries (though of course it should seek their cooperation, a joint ALAC/ccNSO effort would be cool). At very least, ICANN has both the mandate and the capacity to raise global awareness that (and how) .COM is different from .CO (as the most well-known comparison example). In fact such a campaign need to counter the existing perception that functionally they're all the same. I am not trying to shut down discussion, so much as to request its focus on a short-term activity -- public education -- that is both fully doable (should the will exist) and of significant value in service of ICANN's mission. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 6:44 AM Holly Raiche via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Evan and Roberto
I think times have changed, an I think it does need discussion. I”m not quite as pessimistic as Evan (yet!)
Holly
On Apr 28, 2022, at 6:11 PM, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all
Building on Evan’s comment here:
As has been mentioned before, ICANN has no authority over ccTLD policy, so talk here of consumer protections for them is a non-starter.
As we all know, some ccTLDs have consumer protection mechanisms. I wonder whether we can make an effort in involving in At-Large local consumer protection bodies that have ccTLDs in their scope. In the early days of ALAC I tried this, but consumer protection organisations were not attaching any importance to domain names policies. Maybe the time has changed. Or maybe we do have such efforts in place and I am not aware of.
Cheers, Roberto
On 28.04.2022, at 09:28, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Interesting data. Thanks John.
I posit that the move to ccTLDs is something larger than ICANN and beyond its control, attached to a general global attitude moving from globalization to nationalism.
We see it in politics, as recently as the stronger-than-ever nationalist support seen in the recent French election. But it's showing up everywhere, with the election of nativist politicians and policies (ie Brexit and of course Russia). Of course there are other factors, such as the greater likelihood that the domain that you want is available in your own national ccTLD rather than a legacy generic. This would be especially true in the case of registries that impose a local presence by the registrant. And it helps that some registries are getting sophisticated and engaging in active marketing, for example ads like this one <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L49a-GSGa7k> and this one <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodN9r6QuPY> being run by the Canadian ccTLD.
As has been mentioned before, ICANN has no authority over ccTLD policy, so talk here of consumer protections for them is a non-starter. However, ICANN (and its community) have both an interest and a duty to have a public that is aware of the differences between the domains that it regulates(*) and those it does not. I recall trying to sound an alarm some years back when Godaddy swas aggressively marketing .CO domains as a "seamless" alternative to .COMs, that the public had no idea that one was under international rules and one was under Colombian rules.
Nobody cared. So the public remained clueless about the distinction and it generally remains clueless to this day.
(Impress your friends with the useless trivia that their use of a public URL shortener likely involves Internet traffic to Libya...)
ICANN hasn't made a bad effort of informing the public of the differences between Gs and CCs, it has made no effort at all. Not even the minimum -- a gap analysis that clearly indicates the policy differences between ICANN and the various CC registries. If it does exist it's well buried.
Perhaps this remains a public information mandate which ALAC could advocate needs to be resourced. Never too late.
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
(*) Yeah yeah, ICANN says it's not a regulator. But it walks like a regulator and quacks like a regulator; nobody is fooled by this. ICANN's lawyers can bite me.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:35 PM John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
There has been an ongoing new registrations trend with more new ccTLD registrations than gTLD registrations in many countries. It started back around 2005 but it has been accelerating for the last few years.
In some countries, the number of new ccTLD registrations each month is often double that of the gTLDs. The non-core gTLDs (i.e not .COM and to a lesser extent .NET and .ORG) still have their historical shares of country level markets but there is a very obvious shift. There is also a related trend where people register their domain name in the ccTLD and do not bother registering it in .COM or any gTLD. The increasing "uniqueness" of ccTLD registrations is also obvious with some ccTLDs.
There are phases for a country's domain name market development. The early phase involves early adopters setting up websites to sell outside the country. Traditionally, the local Internet and hosting infrastructure was not well developed so most sites were hosted outside the country and there are few if any gTLD registrars in the country. The ccTLD, in this phase, often finds it difficult to complete with gTLDs in terms of both registration fee and ease of registration.
As the country's market develops, along with the Intenet and hosting infrastructure, companies begin to host locally and local gTLD registrars appear along with more local ccTLD registrars. (The model may shift from a registry as registar one to a more typical registry-registrar one.)
With a mature market, the ccTLD dominates the market with there being more ccTLD registrars than local gTLD registrars and new ccTLD registrations overtake new gTLDs registrations each month. Rather than becoming an ICANN accredited registrar, resellers/hosters will decide to become a ccTLD accredited registrar and outsource gTLD registrations to a registrations as a service provider like some of the large gTLD registrars. A lot of the countries with strong ccTLDs are in this phase of development.
ICANN's registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but is out of place in current the global domain name market. This will have a major impact on any geo-gTLD applications in the next round of new gTLDs. If the registrar infrastructure to sell locally is not there, then these new geo-gTLDs will find it very difficult to gain market share. Perhaps an even more worrying possibility for the next round is that the market for some prospective gTLDs does not exist or is much smaller than these applicants expect.
Even with .COM, the market is still dominanted by the early markets and countries with large hosting operations. These are the countries with most .COM websites by country resolved IP address. They are also skewed by large DDoS prevention operators like Cloudflare using US IPs.
| United States | 99763877 | | Germany | 7663915 | | Canada | 3873167 | | Seychelles | 3765103 | | China | 2757786 | | France | 2487080 | | Japan | 2028834 | | United Kingdom | 1786066 | | Netherlands | 1707633 | | Virgin Islands (UK) | 1330498 |
The Seychelles are largely Chinese/Hong Kong sites on Seychelles IP addesses that have been acquired by Chinese operators. The Virgin Islands sites are typically PPC parking and sales.
The distribution of .AFRICA sites is interesting in that South Africa leads with the marjority of sites.
| South Africa | 10673 | | United States | 7936 | | France | 1943 | | Germany | 1572 | | Canada | 864 | | United Kingdom | 741 | | Switzerland | 232 | | Netherlands | 192 | | Morocco | 124 | | Poland | 90 |
The .BERLIN gTLD is one of the better performers of the 2012 round and is closer to being a ccTLD in terms of distribution (as is .AFRICA).
| Germany | 37381 | | France | 3852 | | United States | 2699 | | Denmark | 429 | | Switzerland | 225 | | Austria | 215 | | United Kingdom | 189 | | Canada | 162 | | Poland | 159 | | Hold/Expired | 104 |
ALAC may not need to comment on the above but it needs to be aware that the market for domain names and websites is continually changing and is much more complex than the ICANN registry transactions reports suggest.
Another interesting point was made by Michael Palage about following ccTLD registries on best practice on DNS Abuse, registrant verification and data quality. This is a very good idea and will save ICANN/GNSO/ALAC from wasting time trying to reinvent the wheel.
The important thing to remember is that ccTLDs are very different markets to gTLDs and the ccTLD registries are often well ahead of ICANN on some of these issues (Know Your Customer is a big topic at the moment). We should steer well clear of basing any recommendations on that EU DNS report as it is flawed in conflating ccTLD DNS Abuse with gTLD DNS Abuse.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Excellent idea. One interesting point, however, is that many ccTLDs do a BETTER job of protecting consumers from DNS Abuse so the comparison of management models won't always go our way. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> Main: +1 (202) 827-7594 Direct: +1 (202) 420-7483 ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 8:06:15 AM To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Today's call and the ccTLD/gTLD trends/Following ccTLDs on DNS Abuse Hi Holly, I was deliberately seeking not to be pessimistic (this time!), so much as to outline the current reality and propose action with a chance of success. ICANN has very little leverage over ccTLDs and is unlikely to gain voluntary acceptance of its oversight. Rather than aim for that (IMO) impossible goal, I am advocating that ICANN play a vital role in public education, something it is very capable of doing without consent of the CC registries (though of course it should seek their cooperation, a joint ALAC/ccNSO effort would be cool). At very least, ICANN has both the mandate and the capacity to raise global awareness that (and how) .COM is different from .CO (as the most well-known comparison example). In fact such a campaign need to counter the existing perception that functionally they're all the same. I am not trying to shut down discussion, so much as to request its focus on a short-term activity -- public education -- that is both fully doable (should the will exist) and of significant value in service of ICANN's mission. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 6:44 AM Holly Raiche via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks Evan and Roberto I think times have changed, an I think it does need discussion. I”m not quite as pessimistic as Evan (yet!) Holly On Apr 28, 2022, at 6:11 PM, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all Building on Evan’s comment here: As has been mentioned before, ICANN has no authority over ccTLD policy, so talk here of consumer protections for them is a non-starter. As we all know, some ccTLDs have consumer protection mechanisms. I wonder whether we can make an effort in involving in At-Large local consumer protection bodies that have ccTLDs in their scope. In the early days of ALAC I tried this, but consumer protection organisations were not attaching any importance to domain names policies. Maybe the time has changed. Or maybe we do have such efforts in place and I am not aware of. Cheers, Roberto On 28.04.2022, at 09:28, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Interesting data. Thanks John. I posit that the move to ccTLDs is something larger than ICANN and beyond its control, attached to a general global attitude moving from globalization to nationalism. We see it in politics, as recently as the stronger-than-ever nationalist support seen in the recent French election. But it's showing up everywhere, with the election of nativist politicians and policies (ie Brexit and of course Russia). Of course there are other factors, such as the greater likelihood that the domain that you want is available in your own national ccTLD rather than a legacy generic. This would be especially true in the case of registries that impose a local presence by the registrant. And it helps that some registries are getting sophisticated and engaging in active marketing, for example ads like this one<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L49a-GSGa7k> and this one<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodN9r6QuPY> being run by the Canadian ccTLD. As has been mentioned before, ICANN has no authority over ccTLD policy, so talk here of consumer protections for them is a non-starter. However, ICANN (and its community) have both an interest and a duty to have a public that is aware of the differences between the domains that it regulates(*) and those it does not. I recall trying to sound an alarm some years back when Godaddy swas aggressively marketing .CO domains as a "seamless" alternative to .COMs, that the public had no idea that one was under international rules and one was under Colombian rules. Nobody cared. So the public remained clueless about the distinction and it generally remains clueless to this day. (Impress your friends with the useless trivia that their use of a public URL shortener likely involves Internet traffic to Libya...) ICANN hasn't made a bad effort of informing the public of the differences between Gs and CCs, it has made no effort at all. Not even the minimum -- a gap analysis that clearly indicates the policy differences between ICANN and the various CC registries. If it does exist it's well buried. Perhaps this remains a public information mandate which ALAC could advocate needs to be resourced. Never too late. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 (*) Yeah yeah, ICANN says it's not a regulator. But it walks like a regulator and quacks like a regulator; nobody is fooled by this. ICANN's lawyers can bite me. On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:35 PM John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: There has been an ongoing new registrations trend with more new ccTLD registrations than gTLD registrations in many countries. It started back around 2005 but it has been accelerating for the last few years. In some countries, the number of new ccTLD registrations each month is often double that of the gTLDs. The non-core gTLDs (i.e not .COM and to a lesser extent .NET and .ORG) still have their historical shares of country level markets but there is a very obvious shift. There is also a related trend where people register their domain name in the ccTLD and do not bother registering it in .COM or any gTLD. The increasing "uniqueness" of ccTLD registrations is also obvious with some ccTLDs. There are phases for a country's domain name market development. The early phase involves early adopters setting up websites to sell outside the country. Traditionally, the local Internet and hosting infrastructure was not well developed so most sites were hosted outside the country and there are few if any gTLD registrars in the country. The ccTLD, in this phase, often finds it difficult to complete with gTLDs in terms of both registration fee and ease of registration. As the country's market develops, along with the Intenet and hosting infrastructure, companies begin to host locally and local gTLD registrars appear along with more local ccTLD registrars. (The model may shift from a registry as registar one to a more typical registry-registrar one.) With a mature market, the ccTLD dominates the market with there being more ccTLD registrars than local gTLD registrars and new ccTLD registrations overtake new gTLDs registrations each month. Rather than becoming an ICANN accredited registrar, resellers/hosters will decide to become a ccTLD accredited registrar and outsource gTLD registrations to a registrations as a service provider like some of the large gTLD registrars. A lot of the countries with strong ccTLDs are in this phase of development. ICANN's registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but is out of place in current the global domain name market. This will have a major impact on any geo-gTLD applications in the next round of new gTLDs. If the registrar infrastructure to sell locally is not there, then these new geo-gTLDs will find it very difficult to gain market share. Perhaps an even more worrying possibility for the next round is that the market for some prospective gTLDs does not exist or is much smaller than these applicants expect. Even with .COM, the market is still dominanted by the early markets and countries with large hosting operations. These are the countries with most .COM websites by country resolved IP address. They are also skewed by large DDoS prevention operators like Cloudflare using US IPs. | United States | 99763877 | | Germany | 7663915 | | Canada | 3873167 | | Seychelles | 3765103 | | China | 2757786 | | France | 2487080 | | Japan | 2028834 | | United Kingdom | 1786066 | | Netherlands | 1707633 | | Virgin Islands (UK) | 1330498 | The Seychelles are largely Chinese/Hong Kong sites on Seychelles IP addesses that have been acquired by Chinese operators. The Virgin Islands sites are typically PPC parking and sales. The distribution of .AFRICA sites is interesting in that South Africa leads with the marjority of sites. | South Africa | 10673 | | United States | 7936 | | France | 1943 | | Germany | 1572 | | Canada | 864 | | United Kingdom | 741 | | Switzerland | 232 | | Netherlands | 192 | | Morocco | 124 | | Poland | 90 | The .BERLIN gTLD is one of the better performers of the 2012 round and is closer to being a ccTLD in terms of distribution (as is .AFRICA). | Germany | 37381 | | France | 3852 | | United States | 2699 | | Denmark | 429 | | Switzerland | 225 | | Austria | 215 | | United Kingdom | 189 | | Canada | 162 | | Poland | 159 | | Hold/Expired | 104 | ALAC may not need to comment on the above but it needs to be aware that the market for domain names and websites is continually changing and is much more complex than the ICANN registry transactions reports suggest. Another interesting point was made by Michael Palage about following ccTLD registries on best practice on DNS Abuse, registrant verification and data quality. This is a very good idea and will save ICANN/GNSO/ALAC from wasting time trying to reinvent the wheel. The important thing to remember is that ccTLDs are very different markets to gTLDs and the ccTLD registries are often well ahead of ICANN on some of these issues (Know Your Customer is a big topic at the moment). We should steer well clear of basing any recommendations on that EU DNS report as it is flawed in conflating ccTLD DNS Abuse with gTLD DNS Abuse. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com<mailto:jmcc@hosterstats.com> MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com<http://hosterstats.com/> ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:32 PM Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
One interesting point, however, is that many ccTLDs do a BETTER job of protecting consumers from DNS Abuse so the comparison of management models won't always go our way.
I don't see it as competition. If ICANN has some things to learn from (some) CC registry policies, and some things to teach them, identifying these best practices is good all around. That's another reason that a gap analysis and public chart comparing policies would be of broad benefit throughout the community. The only down side will be for those registries whose deliberately crappy policies will be brought in the open. - Evan
True Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> Main: +1 (202) 827-7594 Direct: +1 (202) 420-7483 ________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 11:22:15 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Today's call and the ccTLD/gTLD trends/Following ccTLDs on DNS Abuse On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:32 PM Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: One interesting point, however, is that many ccTLDs do a BETTER job of protecting consumers from DNS Abuse so the comparison of management models won't always go our way. I don't see it as competition. If ICANN has some things to learn from (some) CC registry policies, and some things to teach them, identifying these best practices is good all around. That's another reason that a gap analysis and public chart comparing policies would be of broad benefit throughout the community. The only down side will be for those registries whose deliberately crappy policies will be brought in the open. - Evan
On 28/04/2022 08:28, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
ICANN hasn't made a bad effort of informing the public of the differences between Gs and CCs, it has made no effort at all. Not even the minimum -- a gap analysis that clearly indicates the policy differences between ICANN and the various CC registries. If it does exist it's well buried.
Perhaps this remains a public information mandate which ALAC could advocate needs to be resourced. Never too late. It would be interesting to see such an analysis, Evan, The problem for ICANN is that people identify with their local ccTLD in a way that they don't generally identify with a gTLD. Some of the more successful and stable new gTLDs have communities that have grown around them (.ORG, geo gTLDs and hobby/interest gTLDs).
A lot of ccTLD registry marketing has focused on the localised nature of ccTLDs and claim that they are more trustworthy than gTLDs. Most local advertising is going to be overwhelmingly ccTLD with a few of the legacy gTLDs. Regards... -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:33 PM John McCormac <jmcc@hosterstats.com> wrote:
The problem for ICANN is that people identify with their local ccTLD in a way that they don't generally identify with a gTLD. Some of the more successful and stable new gTLDs have communities that have grown around them (.ORG, geo gTLDs and hobby/interest gTLDs).
I showed some of the ads used by CIRA, unabashedly using maple syrup and hockey to sell domains to Canadians. The better versions of these registries even have a "local presence" requirement. Then there are the ones at the other end that are deliberately sold as generics like .SX, .FM, .ME, .NU, most famously .TV and as I mentioned .CO. There are some high-profile generic names using ccTLDs (bit.ly, goo.gl) that might otherwise be promoted for local use. And then there's the Laotian CC, still actively marketed as the cityTLD for Los Angeles. In the very last entry <https://www.la/faqs/#faq-23> of the .LA Frequently-Asked Questions list is: *Q: Isn't .LA for Laos? * *A: Dot LA Marketing Company has the rights from the Supporting Organisation of Laos to market .LA. .LA has been open to worldwide registrations since 2000. * ... which speaks to the marketing rights, but nothing at all about where its policies come from. The point is, there are many different types of CC TLDs, which differ from each other in policies and marketing as much as they differ from ICANN's regime for generics. The public ought to know about this. I was on this issue more than a decade ago but got no interest. - Evan
A lot of ccTLD registry marketing has focused on the localised nature of ccTLDs and claim that they are more trustworthy than gTLDs. Most local advertising is going to be overwhelmingly ccTLD with a few of the legacy gTLDs.
Regards... -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
John and Evan have both settled on facts surrounding the ccTLD domain business that, while not generally known, are key to their operational success. The marketing of .co as an alternative to .com is serendipity exploited for profit. They simply upended the 2nd level UK domain naming convention and went for it. Similar arguments sustain the business models adopted for .ag, .bz and .pr. You would have noticed several of those with marquee status are in the LAC region. They bring relatively good revenue and wider participation in the domain name business to the region that has historically been left behind, domain business wise. I can tell you there is no appetite to disrupt that revenue flow. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 14:41, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:33 PM John McCormac <jmcc@hosterstats.com> wrote:
The problem for ICANN is that people identify with their local ccTLD in a way that they don't generally identify with a gTLD. Some of the more successful and stable new gTLDs have communities that have grown around them (.ORG, geo gTLDs and hobby/interest gTLDs).
I showed some of the ads used by CIRA, unabashedly using maple syrup and hockey to sell domains to Canadians. The better versions of these registries even have a "local presence" requirement.
Then there are the ones at the other end that are deliberately sold as generics like .SX, .FM, .ME, .NU, most famously .TV and as I mentioned .CO. There are some high-profile generic names using ccTLDs (bit.ly, goo.gl) that might otherwise be promoted for local use.
And then there's the Laotian CC, still actively marketed as the cityTLD for Los Angeles. In the very last entry <https://www.la/faqs/#faq-23> of the .LA Frequently-Asked Questions list is: *Q: Isn't .LA for Laos? * *A: Dot LA Marketing Company has the rights from the Supporting Organisation of Laos to market .LA. .LA has been open to worldwide registrations since 2000. *
... which speaks to the marketing rights, but nothing at all about where its policies come from.
The point is, there are many different types of CC TLDs, which differ from each other in policies and marketing as much as they differ from ICANN's regime for generics.
The public ought to know about this. I was on this issue more than a decade ago but got no interest.
- Evan
A lot of ccTLD registry marketing has focused on the localised nature of ccTLDs and claim that they are more trustworthy than gTLDs. Most local advertising is going to be overwhelmingly ccTLD with a few of the legacy gTLDs.
Regards... -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On 29/04/2022 00:18, Carlton Samuels wrote:
John and Evan have both settled on facts surrounding the ccTLD domain business that, while not generally known, are key to their operational success.
The marketing of .co as an alternative to .com is serendipity exploited for profit. They simply upended the 2nd level UK domain naming convention and went for it. Similar arguments sustain the business models adopted for .ag, .bz and .pr.
You would have noticed several of those with marquee status are in the LAC region. They bring relatively good revenue and wider participation in the domain name business to the region that has historically been left behind, domain business wise. I can tell you there is no appetite to disrupt that revenue flow.
The .CO was a masterclass in marketing, Carlton, It really set the standard for launching a repurposed TLD. It also launched in a very different TLD landscape (much less competition from gTLDs). The repurposed ccTLDs are generally quite good on registrant rights and it is in the best interests of the registry to operate the ccTLD well. The ISO3166 Alpha 2 code for Colombia is CO so it may have been sheer good luck. One of the main reasons that the .CO did so well was because it was on Godaddy and that gave it immediate access to the US market. From building a database of all ccTLD registrars (magnitudes more difficult than simply checking the ICANN registars), one of the things I noticed was that many of the larger ccTLDs have brand protection operators as registrars in addition to their own local registrars. That's a set of companies with very useful experience in ccTLDs and knowledge of how they handle registrant rights. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
So ... taking this from a valuable discussion to constructive ALAC action that will well-serve registrars, registrants and end-users alike: (See, Holly, I'm not always pessimistic🙂) I would like to propose that the CPWG advance to ALAC Official Advice that ICANN provide the resources to support creation and maintenance of a comprehensive public table/database/whatever that describes the various ccTLD policies and features, compared and contrasted to each other as well as to the general policies/features described in the RAA between ICANN and all gTLDs. - This should *not* be advanced as part of the annual ALAC project allocation request, because that implies a one-shot project with a fixed shelf life. ALAC should advocate this as a permanent component of ICANN's Accountability and Transparency, and ongoing benefit to registrars, registrants and end-users. - If at all possible the content could be coordinated by ALAC, ICANN staff and the ccNSO. If the ccNSO refuses to participate, that should not be an obstacle. (probably the good CC registries will support this, but not all of them are good so ccNSO consensus support may be difficult) - If ICANN does not want ownership of this project for whatever reason, it should still support (ie, resource) the publication of this information through a reliable third party (John's site, perhaps?) Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 1:40 AM John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
On 29/04/2022 00:18, Carlton Samuels wrote:
John and Evan have both settled on facts surrounding the ccTLD domain business that, while not generally known, are key to their operational success.
The marketing of .co as an alternative to .com is serendipity exploited for profit. They simply upended the 2nd level UK domain naming convention and went for it. Similar arguments sustain the business models adopted for .ag, .bz and .pr.
You would have noticed several of those with marquee status are in the LAC region. They bring relatively good revenue and wider participation in the domain name business to the region that has historically been left behind, domain business wise. I can tell you there is no appetite to disrupt that revenue flow.
The .CO was a masterclass in marketing, Carlton, It really set the standard for launching a repurposed TLD. It also launched in a very different TLD landscape (much less competition from gTLDs). The repurposed ccTLDs are generally quite good on registrant rights and it is in the best interests of the registry to operate the ccTLD well.
The ISO3166 Alpha 2 code for Colombia is CO so it may have been sheer good luck. One of the main reasons that the .CO did so well was because it was on Godaddy and that gave it immediate access to the US market.
From building a database of all ccTLD registrars (magnitudes more difficult than simply checking the ICANN registars), one of the things I noticed was that many of the larger ccTLDs have brand protection operators as registrars in addition to their own local registrars. That's a set of companies with very useful experience in ccTLDs and knowledge of how they handle registrant rights.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Evan: I appreciate the positive thrust of your proposal. Thankyou. Regarding the database, I suggest that it has to be done as a permanent and resourced activity of the ICANN staff, reporting to the Board, transparently to the Community. I advocated long ago the creation of an Economiocs and Statistics Department for ICANN, without response to date. This could be a start. Regarding comparability of ccTLD and gTLD policy and regulatory conditions, there may prove to be updating, language and translation constraints, although ICANN nowadays has the resources to deal with that. Should it transpire that certain Registries don't publish their policies, let that be known. Best regards Christopher Wilkinson cw@christopherwilkinson.eu
On 29 Apr 2022, at 20:36, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
So ... taking this from a valuable discussion to constructive ALAC action that will well-serve registrars, registrants and end-users alike: (See, Holly, I'm not always pessimistic🙂)
I would like to propose that the CPWG advance to ALAC Official Advice that ICANN provide the resources to support creation and maintenance of a comprehensive public table/database/whatever that describes the various ccTLD policies and features, compared and contrasted to each other as well as to the general policies/features described in the RAA between ICANN and all gTLDs. This should not be advanced as part of the annual ALAC project allocation request, because that implies a one-shot project with a fixed shelf life. ALAC should advocate this as a permanent component of ICANN's Accountability and Transparency, and ongoing benefit to registrars, registrants and end-users.
If at all possible the content could be coordinated by ALAC, ICANN staff and the ccNSO. If the ccNSO refuses to participate, that should not be an obstacle. (probably the good CC registries will support this, but not all of them are good so ccNSO consensus support may be difficult)
If ICANN does not want ownership of this project for whatever reason, it should still support (ie, resource) the publication of this information through a reliable third party (John's site, perhaps?)
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 1:40 AM John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: On 29/04/2022 00:18, Carlton Samuels wrote:
John and Evan have both settled on facts surrounding the ccTLD domain business that, while not generally known, are key to their operational success.
The marketing of .co as an alternative to .com is serendipity exploited for profit. They simply upended the 2nd level UK domain naming convention and went for it. Similar arguments sustain the business models adopted for .ag, .bz and .pr.
You would have noticed several of those with marquee status are in the LAC region. They bring relatively good revenue and wider participation in the domain name business to the region that has historically been left behind, domain business wise. I can tell you there is no appetite to disrupt that revenue flow.
The .CO was a masterclass in marketing, Carlton, It really set the standard for launching a repurposed TLD. It also launched in a very different TLD landscape (much less competition from gTLDs). The repurposed ccTLDs are generally quite good on registrant rights and it is in the best interests of the registry to operate the ccTLD well.
The ISO3166 Alpha 2 code for Colombia is CO so it may have been sheer good luck. One of the main reasons that the .CO did so well was because it was on Godaddy and that gave it immediate access to the US market.
From building a database of all ccTLD registrars (magnitudes more difficult than simply checking the ICANN registars), one of the things I noticed was that many of the larger ccTLDs have brand protection operators as registrars in addition to their own local registrars. That's a set of companies with very useful experience in ccTLDs and knowledge of how they handle registrant rights.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com <mailto:jmcc@hosterstats.com> MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ <http://www.hosterstats.com/> 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO <https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO> IE * Skype: hosterstats.com <http://hosterstats.com/> **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Now, here's a very useful idea for a worthwhile contribution from At-Large to ICANN in the interest of the user community. In this context, light is and remains the best disinfectant. Excellent proposal, sir! Let the record show my fulsome support for this proposal. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 13:37, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
So ... taking this from a valuable discussion to constructive ALAC action that will well-serve registrars, registrants and end-users alike: (See, Holly, I'm not always pessimistic🙂)
I would like to propose that the CPWG advance to ALAC Official Advice that ICANN provide the resources to support creation and maintenance of a comprehensive public table/database/whatever that describes the various ccTLD policies and features, compared and contrasted to each other as well as to the general policies/features described in the RAA between ICANN and all gTLDs.
- This should *not* be advanced as part of the annual ALAC project allocation request, because that implies a one-shot project with a fixed shelf life. ALAC should advocate this as a permanent component of ICANN's Accountability and Transparency, and ongoing benefit to registrars, registrants and end-users.
- If at all possible the content could be coordinated by ALAC, ICANN staff and the ccNSO. If the ccNSO refuses to participate, that should not be an obstacle. (probably the good CC registries will support this, but not all of them are good so ccNSO consensus support may be difficult)
- If ICANN does not want ownership of this project for whatever reason, it should still support (ie, resource) the publication of this information through a reliable third party (John's site, perhaps?)
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 1:40 AM John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
On 29/04/2022 00:18, Carlton Samuels wrote:
John and Evan have both settled on facts surrounding the ccTLD domain business that, while not generally known, are key to their operational success.
The marketing of .co as an alternative to .com is serendipity exploited for profit. They simply upended the 2nd level UK domain naming convention and went for it. Similar arguments sustain the business models adopted for .ag, .bz and .pr.
You would have noticed several of those with marquee status are in the LAC region. They bring relatively good revenue and wider participation in the domain name business to the region that has historically been left behind, domain business wise. I can tell you there is no appetite to disrupt that revenue flow.
The .CO was a masterclass in marketing, Carlton, It really set the standard for launching a repurposed TLD. It also launched in a very different TLD landscape (much less competition from gTLDs). The repurposed ccTLDs are generally quite good on registrant rights and it is in the best interests of the registry to operate the ccTLD well.
The ISO3166 Alpha 2 code for Colombia is CO so it may have been sheer good luck. One of the main reasons that the .CO did so well was because it was on Godaddy and that gave it immediate access to the US market.
From building a database of all ccTLD registrars (magnitudes more difficult than simply checking the ICANN registars), one of the things I noticed was that many of the larger ccTLDs have brand protection operators as registrars in addition to their own local registrars. That's a set of companies with very useful experience in ccTLDs and knowledge of how they handle registrant rights.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Perhaps this info is already centralized with CENTR.ORG? Best, Theo On Fri, Apr 29, 2022, at 7:32 PM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG wrote:
Now, here's a very useful idea for a worthwhile contribution from At-Large to ICANN in the interest of the user community.
In this context, light is and remains the best disinfectant.
Excellent proposal, sir! Let the record show my fulsome support for this proposal.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 13:37, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
So ... taking this from a valuable discussion to constructive ALAC action that will well-serve registrars, registrants and end-users alike: (See, Holly, I'm not always pessimistic🙂)
I would like to propose that the CPWG advance to ALAC Official Advice that ICANN provide the resources to support creation and maintenance of a comprehensive public table/database/whatever that describes the various ccTLD policies and features, compared and contrasted to each other as well as to the general policies/features described in the RAA between ICANN and all gTLDs. * This should *_not_* be advanced as part of the annual ALAC project allocation request, because that implies a one-shot project with a fixed shelf life. ALAC should advocate this as a permanent component of ICANN's Accountability and Transparency, and ongoing benefit to registrars, registrants and end-users. * If at all possible the content could be coordinated by ALAC, ICANN staff and the ccNSO. If the ccNSO refuses to participate, that should not be an obstacle. (probably the good CC registries will support this, but not all of them are good so ccNSO consensus support may be difficult) * If ICANN does not want ownership of this project for whatever reason, it should still support (ie, resource) the publication of this information through a reliable third party (John's site, perhaps?) Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 1:40 AM John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
On 29/04/2022 00:18, Carlton Samuels wrote:
John and Evan have both settled on facts surrounding the ccTLD domain business that, while not generally known, are key to their operational success.
The marketing of .co as an alternative to .com is serendipity exploited for profit. They simply upended the 2nd level UK domain naming convention and went for it. Similar arguments sustain the business models adopted for .ag, .bz and .pr.
You would have noticed several of those with marquee status are in the LAC region. They bring relatively good revenue and wider participation in the domain name business to the region that has historically been left behind, domain business wise. I can tell you there is no appetite to disrupt that revenue flow.
The .CO was a masterclass in marketing, Carlton, It really set the standard for launching a repurposed TLD. It also launched in a very different TLD landscape (much less competition from gTLDs). The repurposed ccTLDs are generally quite good on registrant rights and it is in the best interests of the registry to operate the ccTLD well.
The ISO3166 Alpha 2 code for Colombia is CO so it may have been sheer good luck. One of the main reasons that the .CO did so well was because it was on Godaddy and that gave it immediate access to the US market.
From building a database of all ccTLD registrars (magnitudes more difficult than simply checking the ICANN registars), one of the things I noticed was that many of the larger ccTLDs have brand protection operators as registrars in addition to their own local registrars. That's a set of companies with very useful experience in ccTLDs and knowledge of how they handle registrant rights.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Theo, CENTR.ORG is a good start. I would certainly solicit its advice and cooperation in this effort. However, I am not sure that it would be the most appropriate venue for it because: - Though it occasionally addresses global issues (mainly sales), it is focused on European ccTLD registries, which are generally of high quality but lack the ... innovations ... that non-European registries have done. - As an industry association of registries it has a mission to act in the interests of its members, which might intersect with those of registrants and end-users but not always. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 3:37 PM Theo Geurts via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Perhaps this info is already centralized with CENTR.ORG?
Best, Theo
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022, at 7:32 PM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG wrote:
Now, here's a very useful idea for a worthwhile contribution from At-Large to ICANN in the interest of the user community.
In this context, light is and remains the best disinfectant.
Excellent proposal, sir! Let the record show my fulsome support for this proposal.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 13:37, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
So ... taking this from a valuable discussion to constructive ALAC action that will well-serve registrars, registrants and end-users alike: (See, Holly, I'm not always pessimistic🙂)
I would like to propose that the CPWG advance to ALAC Official Advice that ICANN provide the resources to support creation and maintenance of a comprehensive public table/database/whatever that describes the various ccTLD policies and features, compared and contrasted to each other as well as to the general policies/features described in the RAA between ICANN and all gTLDs.
- This should *not* be advanced as part of the annual ALAC project allocation request, because that implies a one-shot project with a fixed shelf life. ALAC should advocate this as a permanent component of ICANN's Accountability and Transparency, and ongoing benefit to registrars, registrants and end-users. - If at all possible the content could be coordinated by ALAC, ICANN staff and the ccNSO. If the ccNSO refuses to participate, that should not be an obstacle. (probably the good CC registries will support this, but not all of them are good so ccNSO consensus support may be difficult) - If ICANN does not want ownership of this project for whatever reason, it should still support (ie, resource) the publication of this information through a reliable third party (John's site, perhaps?)
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 1:40 AM John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
On 29/04/2022 00:18, Carlton Samuels wrote:
John and Evan have both settled on facts surrounding the ccTLD domain business that, while not generally known, are key to their operational success.
The marketing of .co as an alternative to .com is serendipity exploited for profit. They simply upended the 2nd level UK domain naming convention and went for it. Similar arguments sustain the business models adopted for .ag, .bz and .pr.
You would have noticed several of those with marquee status are in the LAC region. They bring relatively good revenue and wider participation in the domain name business to the region that has historically been left behind, domain business wise. I can tell you there is no appetite to disrupt that revenue flow.
The .CO was a masterclass in marketing, Carlton, It really set the standard for launching a repurposed TLD. It also launched in a very different TLD landscape (much less competition from gTLDs). The repurposed ccTLDs are generally quite good on registrant rights and it is in the best interests of the registry to operate the ccTLD well.
The ISO3166 Alpha 2 code for Colombia is CO so it may have been sheer good luck. One of the main reasons that the .CO did so well was because it was on Godaddy and that gave it immediate access to the US market.
From building a database of all ccTLD registrars (magnitudes more difficult than simply checking the ICANN registars), one of the things I noticed was that many of the larger ccTLDs have brand protection operators as registrars in addition to their own local registrars. That's a set of companies with very useful experience in ccTLDs and knowledge of how they handle registrant rights.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On 29/04/2022 20:36, Theo Geurts via CPWG wrote:
Perhaps this info is already centralized with CENTR.ORG?
Not sure, Theo, It is a good organisation but has difficulties when it comes to doing complex, large-scale projects. The CENTR affiliated (apparently non CENTR though with key CENTR people) Registry-Registrar Data Group were trying to do all sorts of wonderful things a few years ago. I asked if I could join but was told that since I was not a registrar that I could not join the group. I was, however, invited to give a presentation on how the HosterStats web usage surveys worked to this group which, in a strangely diplomatic turn of mind, I graciously declined. CENTR may have the connections to ccTLD registries but I don't know if it has the data. The problem is that this is effectively a large amount of unstructured data that is often in multiple languages. Some registries can have very limited amounts of documentation whereas others have lots. It is also a moving target in that the data and policies change. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 29/04/2022 19:36, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
So ... taking this from a valuable discussion to constructive ALAC action that will well-serve registrars, registrants and end-users alike: (See, Holly, I'm not always pessimistic🙂)
I would like to propose that the CPWG advance to ALAC Official Advice that ICANN provide the resources to support creation and maintenance of a comprehensive public table/database/whatever that describes the various ccTLD policies and features, compared and contrasted to each other as well as to the general policies/features described in the RAA between ICANN and all gTLDs.
* This should *_not_* be advanced as part of the annual ALAC project allocation request, because that implies a one-shot project with a fixed shelf life. ALAC should advocate this as a permanent component of ICANN's Accountability and Transparency, and ongoing benefit to registrars, registrants and end-users.
* If at all possible the content could be coordinated by ALAC, ICANN staff and the ccNSO. If the ccNSO refuses to participate, that should not be an obstacle. (probably the good CC registries will support this, but not all of them are good so ccNSO consensus support may be difficult)
* If ICANN does not want ownership of this project for whatever reason, it should still support (ie, resource) the publication of this information through a reliable third party (John's site, perhaps?) Not sure of the politics of the situation.
Having ICANN ownership sounds OK in theory but the problem is that when it comes to complex problems, as seen with the OpenData project, ICANN gets some high spec and expensive software that works but it is let down by poor quality data formats and missing or corrupt data. Approximately 72 registry transactions reports were faulty in November 2021 and there were also faulty reports in October 2021. The .AFRICA magically changes each month with no data on new regs since it launched. Integrity checks are very simple to code if you can think in SQL but ICANN seems to hope that the registries will check everything before uploading. As for the system used for working group pages and updates, that takes about 50 seconds for an updated page to reload. It might be getting a bit ahead of things working out where to host such data as the data has still to be collected and parsed. What such a project is trying to achieve would need to be worked out first and then proceed from there. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 28/04/2022 21:32, John McCormac via CPWG wrote:
On 28/04/2022 08:28, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
ICANN hasn't made a bad effort of informing the public of the differences between Gs and CCs, it has made no effort at all. Not even the minimum -- a gap analysis that clearly indicates the policy differences between ICANN and the various CC registries. If it does exist it's well buried.
Perhaps this remains a public information mandate which ALAC could advocate needs to be resourced. Never too late. It would be interesting to see such an analysis, Evan,
I was under the impression that an independent organisation like the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network were going to undertake such study. I must admit I haven't followed this so closely - perhaps someone can enlighten us on this? Kindest regards, Olivier
On 03/05/2022 00:16, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
On 28/04/2022 21:32, John McCormac via CPWG wrote:
On 28/04/2022 08:28, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
ICANN hasn't made a bad effort of informing the public of the differences between Gs and CCs, it has made no effort at all. Not even the minimum -- a gap analysis that clearly indicates the policy differences between ICANN and the various CC registries. If it does exist it's well buried.
Perhaps this remains a public information mandate which ALAC could advocate needs to be resourced. Never too late. It would be interesting to see such an analysis, Evan,
I was under the impression that an independent organisation like the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network were going to undertake such study. I must admit I haven't followed this so closely - perhaps someone can enlighten us on this?
Seriously though, Christopher's idea of a statistics/economics department for ICANN is a good one as it might have prevented them making what can only be described as Astrological or Numerological "predictions" about the 2012 round. I'm not exactly sure about the gap analysis on policies as the gTLDs are typically global in nature and most ccTLDS are geographically limited and governed by local legislation. One of the big problems, as I remember from the .EU Sunrise fiasco was the difference in how business names (a "trading as" or "doing business as" name) were treated in law across the EU. Simple enough to sort out beforehand but it wasn't and it led to high levels of outright cybersquatting and rejected applications. The registrants need simple and clear explanations of the differences rather than intricate explanations of policies. I've a rough schema in mind but haven't read all the policies. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 04/05/2022 11:36, John McCormac wrote:
On 03/05/2022 00:16, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
I was under the impression that an independent organisation like the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network were going to undertake such study. I must admit I haven't followed this so closely - perhaps someone can enlighten us on this?
Seriously though, Christopher's idea of a statistics/economics department for ICANN is a good one as it might have prevented them making what can only be described as Astrological or Numerological "predictions" about the 2012 round.
The suggestion was made prior to the 2012 round when an economic impact analysis was asked by the Board. This was punted to an external consultancy and many other similar requests ever since. In parallel, on the topic of SSR, the DAAR project was born within OCTO ( https://www.icann.org/octo-ssr/daar ) and also the IHTI ( https://ithi.research.icann.org/ ) so ICANN does have some in-house resources that are capable of compiling statistics but if a wider statistics/economics department hasn't been created in over 10 years, think what is the actual hurdle to it? Kindest regards, Olivier
On 04/05/2022 15:04, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
On 04/05/2022 11:36, John McCormac wrote:
On 03/05/2022 00:16, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
I was under the impression that an independent organisation like the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network were going to undertake such study. I must admit I haven't followed this so closely - perhaps someone can enlighten us on this?
Seriously though, Christopher's idea of a statistics/economics department for ICANN is a good one as it might have prevented them making what can only be described as Astrological or Numerological "predictions" about the 2012 round.
The suggestion was made prior to the 2012 round when an economic impact analysis was asked by the Board. This was punted to an external consultancy and many other similar requests ever since. In parallel, on the topic of SSR, the DAAR project was born within OCTO ( https://www.icann.org/octo-ssr/daar ) and also the IHTI ( https://ithi.research.icann.org/ ) so ICANN does have some in-house resources that are capable of compiling statistics but if a wider statistics/economics department hasn't been created in over 10 years, think what is the actual hurdle to it?
There's one hurdle, Olivier, Real knowledge of the domain name industry is expensive. The OpenData project was a good start for metrics but that kind of work needs ongoing maintenance and monitoring. That's where the real costs kick in. Regards...jmcc
Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Dear All, I am opting to respond to one of the mails on this subject that reached me. Since, I am traveling this week, I have limited time to catch up on the other responses. The attachment is a visual on the ccTLDs that has been useful for me while doing some discussions on geopolitics in a limited manner. ccTLDs are highly prone to using "Domain Hack" techniques. For example: inter.net dates back to 1992. www.cou.ch : Is a good choice for a couch vendor for branding but it has .ch www.mydoma.in : Is a common idea in India. coffeehou.se : Is a catchy name for a Coffee Shop ccTLD would inject more brand information inside the web address to educate visitors more about the brand. Domain hack is an excellent way to be memorable and interesting. Certain ccTLDs are banned by certain countries. GEOPOLITICS ? Also, the trend is that a .com domain name is purchased before registering a ccTLD domain name. Your thoughts on these observations please. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli PS: I will try to catch up on 9 May 2022. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 2022-05-04 14:06, John McCormac via CPWG wrote:
On 03/05/2022 00:16, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
On 28/04/2022 21:32, John McCormac via CPWG wrote:
On 28/04/2022 08:28, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
ICANN hasn't made a bad effort of informing the public of the differences between Gs and CCs, it has made no effort at all. Not even the minimum -- a gap analysis that clearly indicates the policy differences between ICANN and the various CC registries. If it does exist it's well buried.
Perhaps this remains a public information mandate which ALAC could advocate needs to be resourced. Never too late. It would be interesting to see such an analysis, Evan,
I was under the impression that an independent organisation like the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network were going to undertake such study. I must admit I haven't followed this so closely - perhaps someone can enlighten us on this?
Seriously though, Christopher's idea of a statistics/economics department for ICANN is a good one as it might have prevented them making what can only be described as Astrological or Numerological "predictions" about the 2012 round.
I'm not exactly sure about the gap analysis on policies as the gTLDs are typically global in nature and most ccTLDS are geographically limited and governed by local legislation. One of the big problems, as I remember from the .EU Sunrise fiasco was the difference in how business names (a "trading as" or "doing business as" name) were treated in law across the EU. Simple enough to sort out beforehand but it wasn't and it led to high levels of outright cybersquatting and rejected applications.
The registrants need simple and clear explanations of the differences rather than intricate explanations of policies. I've a rough schema in mind but haven't read all the policies.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On 04/05/2022 17:08, gopal@annauniv.edu wrote:
Dear All,
I am opting to respond to one of the mails on this subject that reached me.
Since, I am traveling this week, I have limited time to catch up on the other responses.
The attachment is a visual on the ccTLDs that has been useful for me while doing some discussions on geopolitics in a limited manner.
ccTLDs are highly prone to using "Domain Hack" techniques.
For example: inter.net dates back to 1992.
www.cou.ch : Is a good choice for a couch vendor for branding but it has .ch
www.mydoma.in : Is a common idea in India.
coffeehou.se : Is a catchy name for a Coffee Shop
Domain hacks are a niche rather than generally used domain names. This is because the ccTLD part of the domain name becomes psychologically invisible to the users in that country. This is because with successful ccTLDs, people begin to think of the ccTLD as *their* TLD. Think of the way that people give directions to their favourite restaurant or shop. Theydon't give the name of the country unless they are living in a border region.
Also, the trend is that a .com domain name is purchased before registering a ccTLD domain name.
For ccTLDs launched since the DotCom bubble, perhaps but unless the ccTLD is in a developing market with an early phase registry (manual registrations processing and typically run from a university Computer Science or government department) the ccTLD registation may predate the equivalent .COM registration. Where the domain name is a highly generic term, the .COM registration may have been registered decades ago. The ccTLD/.COM pair used to be the "must-register" pair for businesses but as ccTLD markets started to dominate their local country markets, many registrants only register a .ccTLD domain name. That increasing "uniqueness" percentage increases as the ccTLD becomes more popular. The gTLDs then start to fall back to replacement level and new registration volume switches to the ccTLD. The development level of the local Internet infrastructure also plays a part. Where there is a less developed infrastructure, domain names and sites will be hosted outside the country. As the infrastructure develops, domain names and sites shift to be locally hosted. If the .COM registration fee is cheaper than the local ccTLD in a developing market then more registrations from that country will be .COM/gTLD than .ccTLD but that changes once there is widespread adoption of the ccTLD in that country. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Dear All, This is the thread with [most] many responses in the past few weeks. I hope a summary of the mails is sent out as per the CPWG list policy. I wish to mention that: One great advantage of ccTLD is that it ranks high on authority for country specific search engine. For e.g. stratadigital.in will have better search authority and ranking than a sub-domains or sub-directories when one searches within [say] Google India. Another advantage of using ccTLDs is the perception of the customer. In many countries, brands that use ccTLDs are more trusted than brands that use a different structure. For e.g. a .in has better perception locally than a .com. Usually companies that have a ccTLD also have physical presence in that country. The thrust in ccTLD registrations is understandable and to my mind not entirely unanticipated. When correlated with the IDNs, it warrants a very strong ICANN Policy Framework founded on the multi-stakeholder model. Thank you for a very nice discussion thread. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 2022-04-27 22:04, John McCormac via CPWG wrote:
There has been an ongoing new registrations trend with more new ccTLD registrations than gTLD registrations in many countries. It started back around 2005 but it has been accelerating for the last few years.
In some countries, the number of new ccTLD registrations each month is often double that of the gTLDs. The non-core gTLDs (i.e not .COM and to a lesser extent .NET and .ORG) still have their historical shares of country level markets but there is a very obvious shift. There is also a related trend where people register their domain name in the ccTLD and do not bother registering it in .COM or any gTLD. The increasing "uniqueness" of ccTLD registrations is also obvious with some ccTLDs.
There are phases for a country's domain name market development. The early phase involves early adopters setting up websites to sell outside the country. Traditionally, the local Internet and hosting infrastructure was not well developed so most sites were hosted outside the country and there are few if any gTLD registrars in the country. The ccTLD, in this phase, often finds it difficult to complete with gTLDs in terms of both registration fee and ease of registration.
As the country's market develops, along with the Intenet and hosting infrastructure, companies begin to host locally and local gTLD registrars appear along with more local ccTLD registrars. (The model may shift from a registry as registar one to a more typical registry-registrar one.)
With a mature market, the ccTLD dominates the market with there being more ccTLD registrars than local gTLD registrars and new ccTLD registrations overtake new gTLDs registrations each month. Rather than becoming an ICANN accredited registrar, resellers/hosters will decide to become a ccTLD accredited registrar and outsource gTLD registrations to a registrations as a service provider like some of the large gTLD registrars. A lot of the countries with strong ccTLDs are in this phase of development.
ICANN's registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but is out of place in current the global domain name market. This will have a major impact on any geo-gTLD applications in the next round of new gTLDs. If the registrar infrastructure to sell locally is not there, then these new geo-gTLDs will find it very difficult to gain market share. Perhaps an even more worrying possibility for the next round is that the market for some prospective gTLDs does not exist or is much smaller than these applicants expect.
Even with .COM, the market is still dominanted by the early markets and countries with large hosting operations. These are the countries with most .COM websites by country resolved IP address. They are also skewed by large DDoS prevention operators like Cloudflare using US IPs.
| United States | 99763877 | | Germany | 7663915 | | Canada | 3873167 | | Seychelles | 3765103 | | China | 2757786 | | France | 2487080 | | Japan | 2028834 | | United Kingdom | 1786066 | | Netherlands | 1707633 | | Virgin Islands (UK) | 1330498 |
The Seychelles are largely Chinese/Hong Kong sites on Seychelles IP addesses that have been acquired by Chinese operators. The Virgin Islands sites are typically PPC parking and sales.
The distribution of .AFRICA sites is interesting in that South Africa leads with the marjority of sites.
| South Africa | 10673 | | United States | 7936 | | France | 1943 | | Germany | 1572 | | Canada | 864 | | United Kingdom | 741 | | Switzerland | 232 | | Netherlands | 192 | | Morocco | 124 | | Poland | 90 |
The .BERLIN gTLD is one of the better performers of the 2012 round and is closer to being a ccTLD in terms of distribution (as is .AFRICA).
| Germany | 37381 | | France | 3852 | | United States | 2699 | | Denmark | 429 | | Switzerland | 225 | | Austria | 215 | | United Kingdom | 189 | | Canada | 162 | | Poland | 159 | | Hold/Expired | 104 |
ALAC may not need to comment on the above but it needs to be aware that the market for domain names and websites is continually changing and is much more complex than the ICANN registry transactions reports suggest.
Another interesting point was made by Michael Palage about following ccTLD registries on best practice on DNS Abuse, registrant verification and data quality. This is a very good idea and will save ICANN/GNSO/ALAC from wasting time trying to reinvent the wheel.
The important thing to remember is that ccTLDs are very different markets to gTLDs and the ccTLD registries are often well ahead of ICANN on some of these issues (Know Your Customer is a big topic at the moment). We should steer well clear of basing any recommendations on that EU DNS report as it is flawed in conflating ccTLD DNS Abuse with gTLD DNS Abuse.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (11)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
gopal＠annauniv.edu -
Holly Raiche -
John McCormac -
Jonathan Zuck -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Theo Geurts -
Wolfgang Kleinwächter