n ICANN, the change in the multi-stakeholder model is being addressed. In Barcelona, at the ALAC meeting with the ICANN Board, I asked if this change would also imply a change in the bottom-up work methodology that is essential to establish our relationship with the end users and obtain the necessary feedbak for the generation of policies They answered that that would not change. This type of measures, are showing that this methodology has already changed, that the opinion of several of the multiple stakeholders is no longer taken into account .. Regards Alberto De: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> en nombre de Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com> Fecha: lunes, 1 de julio de 2019, 07:00 Para: "cw@christopherwilkinson.eu" <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> CC: "cpwg@icann.org" <cpwg@icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Planning for Round Two of New gTLDS is open? Yes, this seems to be ignoring our opinions expressed. However, as the gTLD market is already over-saturated, I believe the results of another round will work against those who are pushing for it. Thus, after saying what should be said, we may just wait and see ... ALAC will be be blamed anyway. Also, if there is going to be another CCT-RT for that round, I would gladly volunteer for it. : ) Kaili On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:01 AM cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Indeed: 1. The ICANN working paper ignores several key points that have been raised in the PDP, by ALAC, and in the meetings in ICANN65. 2. The Circle ID article by the CEO of Cum Laude, presumably is an embarrassment to the PDP CoChairs. CW

I think I'm inclined to agree with Ricardo in this. Sure, it can be a slippery slope and we want to ensure that the issues of the previous round are resolved prior to a new one but organizational readiness that, as yet, has cost nothing, probably shouldn't be painted as a conspiracy. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> From: Ricardo Holmquist Sent: Monday, 1 July, 3:56 pm Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [At-Large] [registration-issues-wg] Planning for Round Two of New gTLDS is open? To: Alberto Soto Cc: cpwg@icann.org, cw@christopherwilkinson.eu, At-Large Worldwide Hi all, I am not sure we are addressing the same issues here. At ICANN 66 there was a presentation of ICANN org about this. Maybe I am too naive, and don´t see the conspiracies around, but the presentation just showed an organization trying to prepare for something, the new round of gTLDs, that instead of waiting for a new AGB to be ready (all WT were supposed to end by December 2019), is planning, both organizational and financially (CFO was present, and answered some of the questions). We are expecting/asking/claiming ICANN to be more transparent each day, but once they do something in that direction, we all are looking for the conspiracies. As ALAC we are not in a hurry for a new round. In my case, I don´t even think we need one, there are so many alternatives now. (And still ask a millennial to look for a name to his company, and will always point to a .com or worst, they won't ever have one website, is far too complicated, they are just setting a facebook site or a Instagram one for the youngest). But, yes, there is still a lot of people in other constituencies asking for this new round to happen fast, claiming over 20.000 names are looking for a TLD, so ICANN seems to be "conservative" expecting just a 10% of that, and hearing RSSAC and SSAC, that no more than a thousand should be included in the root zone by year, or we might have a root stability problem. Is ICANN rushing anyone with this?, I really don't think so. I not hearing us?, again, I don't think so. In fact from a business stand point I will call them irresponsibles if they were not planning for this. Hope this helps Regards Ricardo El lun., 1 jul. 2019 a las 14:27, Alberto Soto (<alberto@soto.net.ar<mailto:alberto@soto.net.ar>>) escribió: n ICANN, the change in the multi-stakeholder model is being addressed. In Barcelona, at the ALAC meeting with the ICANN Board, I asked if this change would also imply a change in the bottom-up work methodology that is essential to establish our relationship with the end users and obtain the necessary feedbak for the generation of policies They answered that that would not change. This type of measures, are showing that this methodology has already changed, that the opinion of several of the multiple stakeholders is no longer taken into account .. Regards Alberto De: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> en nombre de Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com<mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>> Fecha: lunes, 1 de julio de 2019, 07:00 Para: "cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>" <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> CC: "cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>" <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Planning for Round Two of New gTLDS is open? Yes, this seems to be ignoring our opinions expressed. However, as the gTLD market is already over-saturated, I believe the results of another round will work against those who are pushing for it. Thus, after saying what should be said, we may just wait and see ... ALAC will be be blamed anyway. Also, if there is going to be another CCT-RT for that round, I would gladly volunteer for it. : ) Kaili On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:01 AM cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu><cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Indeed: 1. The ICANN working paper ignores several key points that have been raised in the PDP, by ALAC, and in the meetings in ICANN65. 2. The Circle ID article by the CEO of Cum Laude, presumably is an embarrassment to the PDP CoChairs. CW _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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 Kaili, Could you expound on the statement that the new gTLD market is already saturated? How did you arrive at this conclusion. We are working hard through dnsforum.africa to grow the market in Africa and would be keen on new perspectives. Regards On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, 12:48 pm Kaili Kan, <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, this seems to be ignoring our opinions expressed.

However, as the gTLD market is already over-saturated, I believe the results of another round will work against those who are pushing for it. Thus, after saying what should be said, we may just wait and see ... ALAC will be be blamed anyway.

Also, if there is going to be another CCT-RT for that round, I would gladly volunteer for it. : )

Kaili

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:01 AM cw@christopherwilkinson.eu < cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

...

Indeed:

1. The ICANN working paper ignores several key points that have been raised in the PDP, by ALAC, and in the meetings in ICANN65.

2. The Circle ID article by the CEO of Cum Laude, presumably is an embarrassment to the PDP CoChairs.

CW

On 26 Jun 2019, at 02:15, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:

...hmmmm.......

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190620_icann_announces_planning_for_round_tw...

-Carlton

============================== *Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________ 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.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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 01/07/2019 16:16, Kaili Kan wrote:

Hi, Barrack,

Thank you for asking.  If you look into the CCT-RT report, it will clearly show that the gTLD market is already saturated.  As a mater of fact, well over half of the new gTLDs are being parked, i.e., not being used, but mostly for speculation.

Hi, Kaili, The conclusions of the CCT-RT were based on faulty assumptions and poor methodology (classifying redirects as "parking" etc). There's a considerable percentage of websites that redirect to the HTTPS version of their site. Some NGTs are almost completely HTTPS. What the CCT-RT report called "parking" is often nothing of the sort. The idea that all unused domain names are speculative registrations is wrong. Many businesses will protect their brand in relevant TLDs but will either point the domain name to their primary band site or leave the domain name undeveloped. ICANN and the IP constituency seems to think in terms of trademarks and service marks representing the bulk of brand protection registrations. This is wrong. Small businesses with no trademarks or service marks represent the bulk of brand protection registrations. This is why, for example, the most common registration pair is .ccTLD/.COM. Many registrars now automatically park undeveloped and unused domain names on PPC services. Sedo, Parkingcrew and others have a registrar parking services to monetise these unused domain names. However, when the ordinary user lands on one of these sites, they only see PPC adverts. They don't know if the site is a speculative registration or an undeveloped domain name. Some of the NGT registries chose to make discounting a central element of their business model and these heavily discounted registrations attracted problematic registrations that did not renew. The usage of these domain names was almost purely gambling and adult affiliate landers. The methodology relied upon by CCT-RT couldn't distinguish an affiliate landing page from an active website. Thus many of the NGTs in the report on which CCT-RT relied had real usage rates that were often below 10%. This usage percentage has been supported by the subsequent non-renewal rates in many of these NGTs. Highly speculative registrations in a new TLD generally drop on the first renewal. This is the Junk Dump where those domain names that could not be sold are dropped. Many of the higher priced NGTs did quite well on their first renewal (50% to 78% renewals). The main focus of speculative registrations is .COM TLD. That has not changed since the NGTs were launched. Grouping all new gTLDs as a single TLD is wrong. Some of the new gTLDs have ccTLD-like characteristics and equally high usage rates. Others are almost completely filled with low quality landers, PPC and holding pages.

Regarding Africa, and the global South in general, I don't think the problem is a lack of supply.  That is, the economic and social status makes the demand relatively weak, and maybe also lack of necessary skills, to apply for and run gTLDs.  Thus, instead of supplying more new gTLDs, ICANN should provide assistance to Africa and the global South for that.

The Africa and global South markets are extremely large. In terms of coverage and populations. Many of the ccTLDs are still in their early phases of development. In a recent gTLD website survey, there were more gTLD websites by country of IP address in the UK than there were on the entire continent of Africa. Even mapping gTLD website usage by IP can be problematic as A Dutch hosting company is using a lot of Seychelles IP addresses. The African and global South markets are developing in different ways to the global North markets. This is because a lot of Internet use in those markets are mobile phone based whereas the global North markets developed from desktop Internet and then incorporated mobile Internet. The African and global South markets often rely more on mobile Internet and that makes the development, and usage of domain names and TLDs in those markets different to the usual expectations. It might be a good thing for any planning to examine these dynamics in the African and global South markets. (Grouping the continent of Africa as a single market rather than a set of markets is not a good thing.) I'm not sure that the gTLD market is saturated. It is the registrants and users that make a gTLD a success. Some gTLDs will succeed and others have already failed. The gTLD market is one of many different gTLDs in various states of evolution. Just on the .COM TLD, there are more deleted domain .COM domain names than there are currently active .COM domain names. The gTLD market isn't a monolith. It is closer in nature to a slowly flowing river. The biggest flaw of the first round evaluation process was that it seemed to pay very little attention to the marketing budgets and abilities of those promoting the NGTs. That has to be addressed in planning for the second round. Despite some on the list being against speculation, those people who register speculative domain names are doing something that the people who just talk about such things do not. They are registering domain names. They also promote these new TLDs and act as unpaid sales people. They are an important part of the domain name ecology. Without them, a new TLD will find it much harder to gain registrations. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * And Historical DNS Database. Ireland * Over 516 Million Domains Tracked. IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

Hi Kaili and colleagues, Many thanks for your insightful responses, this conversation is very good and should continue. On another note Kaili, i would posit that there is room for new TLDs the only problem is limited effort to build the capacity of end users on how they can take advantage of the TLDs. I am very passionate about end user campaigns and can attest to the fact that when a user is properly educated, they not only invest in themselves but in others whom they beleive will benefit. I equate a website to a book. The world has never been saturated with books hence i don't think the world can be saturated with TLDs. I think we need to put more emphasis on how end users can benefit from the TLDs. Out of over 300 million domain names across all TLDs Africa only has 1,6 million (just under 1 %) We are speaking of a Region with approximately 450 million Internet users as such i am not willing to buy the idea that the market is saturated. We need to look at how to empower undeserved Regions to open up new frontiers for the TLDs. Regards On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:59 AM Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, John,

Thank you for your response.

I believe that we do not agree on quite a few points, including our views of the CCT-RT report, whether the gTLD market is saturated, how to look at the African and global South DNS market, etc.

However, I also believe that we have at least one point in common. That is, let the market decide. So, I am NOT against ICANN going for another round of new gTLDs. As a matter of fact, I would suggest to eliminate the "rounds", and go for a continuous and unlimited supply of new gTLDs. That is, as long as anybody is willing to pay a fee and wait for a few months of contentious period, he/she may get the new gTLD wanted. This way, the market itself will tell us when the saturation point has been reached. Of course, if this scheme is adopted, measures to protect end-users' interests (and of other parties) as suggested in the CCT-RT report MUST take place simultaneously.

Yes?

Regards, Kaili

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:40 AM John McCormac <jmcc@hosterstats.com> wrote:

...

On 01/07/2019 16:16, Kaili Kan wrote:

...

Hi, Barrack,

Thank you for asking. If you look into the CCT-RT report, it will clearly show that the gTLD market is already saturated. As a mater of fact, well over half of the new gTLDs are being parked, i.e., not being used, but mostly for speculation.

Hi, Kaili, The conclusions of the CCT-RT were based on faulty assumptions and poor methodology (classifying redirects as "parking" etc). There's a considerable percentage of websites that redirect to the HTTPS version of their site. Some NGTs are almost completely HTTPS. What the CCT-RT report called "parking" is often nothing of the sort.

The idea that all unused domain names are speculative registrations is wrong. Many businesses will protect their brand in relevant TLDs but will either point the domain name to their primary band site or leave the domain name undeveloped. ICANN and the IP constituency seems to think in terms of trademarks and service marks representing the bulk of brand protection registrations. This is wrong. Small businesses with no trademarks or service marks represent the bulk of brand protection registrations. This is why, for example, the most common registration pair is .ccTLD/.COM.

Many registrars now automatically park undeveloped and unused domain names on PPC services. Sedo, Parkingcrew and others have a registrar parking services to monetise these unused domain names. However, when the ordinary user lands on one of these sites, they only see PPC adverts. They don't know if the site is a speculative registration or an undeveloped domain name.

Some of the NGT registries chose to make discounting a central element of their business model and these heavily discounted registrations attracted problematic registrations that did not renew. The usage of these domain names was almost purely gambling and adult affiliate landers. The methodology relied upon by CCT-RT couldn't distinguish an affiliate landing page from an active website. Thus many of the NGTs in the report on which CCT-RT relied had real usage rates that were often below 10%. This usage percentage has been supported by the subsequent non-renewal rates in many of these NGTs.

Highly speculative registrations in a new TLD generally drop on the first renewal. This is the Junk Dump where those domain names that could not be sold are dropped. Many of the higher priced NGTs did quite well on their first renewal (50% to 78% renewals). The main focus of speculative registrations is .COM TLD. That has not changed since the NGTs were launched.

Grouping all new gTLDs as a single TLD is wrong. Some of the new gTLDs have ccTLD-like characteristics and equally high usage rates. Others are almost completely filled with low quality landers, PPC and holding pages.

...

Regarding Africa, and the global South in general, I don't think the problem is a lack of supply. That is, the economic and social status makes the demand relatively weak, and maybe also lack of necessary skills, to apply for and run gTLDs. Thus, instead of supplying more new gTLDs, ICANN should provide assistance to Africa and the global South for that.

The Africa and global South markets are extremely large. In terms of coverage and populations. Many of the ccTLDs are still in their early phases of development. In a recent gTLD website survey, there were more gTLD websites by country of IP address in the UK than there were on the entire continent of Africa. Even mapping gTLD website usage by IP can be problematic as A Dutch hosting company is using a lot of Seychelles IP addresses.

The African and global South markets are developing in different ways to the global North markets. This is because a lot of Internet use in those markets are mobile phone based whereas the global North markets developed from desktop Internet and then incorporated mobile Internet. The African and global South markets often rely more on mobile Internet and that makes the development, and usage of domain names and TLDs in those markets different to the usual expectations. It might be a good thing for any planning to examine these dynamics in the African and global South markets. (Grouping the continent of Africa as a single market rather than a set of markets is not a good thing.)

I'm not sure that the gTLD market is saturated. It is the registrants and users that make a gTLD a success. Some gTLDs will succeed and others have already failed. The gTLD market is one of many different gTLDs in various states of evolution. Just on the .COM TLD, there are more deleted domain .COM domain names than there are currently active .COM domain names. The gTLD market isn't a monolith. It is closer in nature to a slowly flowing river.

The biggest flaw of the first round evaluation process was that it seemed to pay very little attention to the marketing budgets and abilities of those promoting the NGTs. That has to be addressed in planning for the second round.

Despite some on the list being against speculation, those people who register speculative domain names are doing something that the people who just talk about such things do not. They are registering domain names. They also promote these new TLDs and act as unpaid sales people. They are an important part of the domain name ecology. Without them, a new TLD will find it much harder to gain registrations.

Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * And Historical DNS Database. Ireland * Over 516 Million Domains Tracked. IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************

--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A

Hi, Barrack, Evan and friends, Thank you for your responses. Now, Barrack, we indeed have one point in common. That is, let the market decide. However, what you talked about building the capacity of end users, is actually the same as creating demand. In other words, now the problem is not at the supply side, but at the demand. This is exactly what we do not agree upon: In my view the market is already saturated, while you believe there is still a substantial unmet demand. However, as you speak about the effort needed, it seems like you are not so sure about the demand yourself. Exactly what is right, again, let the market decide. On the other hand, Evan, regarding ICANN protecting end-users' interests when designing the new gTLD program, I do not have more confidence than you do. Especially as ICANN is being steered by revenue-thirsty contracted parties. Furthermore, ICANN itself relies on such income in order to survive today's declining market demand. This is exactly what ALAC is here for. Let's speak out load and do our best, but I am not bidding on a great success. Anyway, as long as we have spoken and did our best, there is nothing to regret. This current situation reminds me of a saying I love the most: Oh, God, please give me courage, so I can change the things that can be changed; please give me resilience, so that I can bear those that could not be changed; please give me wisdom, so I can tell what could be changed and what could not. Thank you all. Kaili On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 5:19 PM Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Kaili and colleagues,

Many thanks for your insightful responses, this conversation is very good and should continue. On another note Kaili, i would posit that there is room for new TLDs the only problem is limited effort to build the capacity of end users on how they can take advantage of the TLDs. I am very passionate about end user campaigns and can attest to the fact that when a user is properly educated, they not only invest in themselves but in others whom they beleive will benefit. I equate a website to a book. The world has never been saturated with books hence i don't think the world can be saturated with TLDs. I think we need to put more emphasis on how end users can benefit from the TLDs. Out of over 300 million domain names across all TLDs Africa only has 1,6 million (just under 1 %) We are speaking of a Region with approximately 450 million Internet users as such i am not willing to buy the idea that the market is saturated. We need to look at how to empower undeserved Regions to open up new frontiers for the TLDs.

Regards

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:59 AM Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi, John,

Thank you for your response.

I believe that we do not agree on quite a few points, including our views of the CCT-RT report, whether the gTLD market is saturated, how to look at the African and global South DNS market, etc.

However, I also believe that we have at least one point in common. That is, let the market decide. So, I am NOT against ICANN going for another round of new gTLDs. As a matter of fact, I would suggest to eliminate the "rounds", and go for a continuous and unlimited supply of new gTLDs. That is, as long as anybody is willing to pay a fee and wait for a few months of contentious period, he/she may get the new gTLD wanted. This way, the market itself will tell us when the saturation point has been reached. Of course, if this scheme is adopted, measures to protect end-users' interests (and of other parties) as suggested in the CCT-RT report MUST take place simultaneously.

Yes?

Regards, Kaili

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:40 AM John McCormac <jmcc@hosterstats.com> wrote:

...

On 01/07/2019 16:16, Kaili Kan wrote:

...

Hi, Barrack,

Thank you for asking. If you look into the CCT-RT report, it will clearly show that the gTLD market is already saturated. As a mater of fact, well over half of the new gTLDs are being parked, i.e., not being used, but mostly for speculation.

Hi, Kaili, The conclusions of the CCT-RT were based on faulty assumptions and poor methodology (classifying redirects as "parking" etc). There's a considerable percentage of websites that redirect to the HTTPS version of their site. Some NGTs are almost completely HTTPS. What the CCT-RT report called "parking" is often nothing of the sort.

The idea that all unused domain names are speculative registrations is wrong. Many businesses will protect their brand in relevant TLDs but will either point the domain name to their primary band site or leave the domain name undeveloped. ICANN and the IP constituency seems to think in terms of trademarks and service marks representing the bulk of brand protection registrations. This is wrong. Small businesses with no trademarks or service marks represent the bulk of brand protection registrations. This is why, for example, the most common registration pair is .ccTLD/.COM.

Many registrars now automatically park undeveloped and unused domain names on PPC services. Sedo, Parkingcrew and others have a registrar parking services to monetise these unused domain names. However, when the ordinary user lands on one of these sites, they only see PPC adverts. They don't know if the site is a speculative registration or an undeveloped domain name.

Some of the NGT registries chose to make discounting a central element of their business model and these heavily discounted registrations attracted problematic registrations that did not renew. The usage of these domain names was almost purely gambling and adult affiliate landers. The methodology relied upon by CCT-RT couldn't distinguish an affiliate landing page from an active website. Thus many of the NGTs in the report on which CCT-RT relied had real usage rates that were often below 10%. This usage percentage has been supported by the subsequent non-renewal rates in many of these NGTs.

Highly speculative registrations in a new TLD generally drop on the first renewal. This is the Junk Dump where those domain names that could not be sold are dropped. Many of the higher priced NGTs did quite well on their first renewal (50% to 78% renewals). The main focus of speculative registrations is .COM TLD. That has not changed since the NGTs were launched.

Grouping all new gTLDs as a single TLD is wrong. Some of the new gTLDs have ccTLD-like characteristics and equally high usage rates. Others are almost completely filled with low quality landers, PPC and holding pages.

...

Regarding Africa, and the global South in general, I don't think the problem is a lack of supply. That is, the economic and social status makes the demand relatively weak, and maybe also lack of necessary skills, to apply for and run gTLDs. Thus, instead of supplying more new gTLDs, ICANN should provide assistance to Africa and the global South for that.

The Africa and global South markets are extremely large. In terms of coverage and populations. Many of the ccTLDs are still in their early phases of development. In a recent gTLD website survey, there were more gTLD websites by country of IP address in the UK than there were on the entire continent of Africa. Even mapping gTLD website usage by IP can be problematic as A Dutch hosting company is using a lot of Seychelles IP addresses.

The African and global South markets are developing in different ways to the global North markets. This is because a lot of Internet use in those markets are mobile phone based whereas the global North markets developed from desktop Internet and then incorporated mobile Internet. The African and global South markets often rely more on mobile Internet and that makes the development, and usage of domain names and TLDs in those markets different to the usual expectations. It might be a good thing for any planning to examine these dynamics in the African and global South markets. (Grouping the continent of Africa as a single market rather than a set of markets is not a good thing.)

I'm not sure that the gTLD market is saturated. It is the registrants and users that make a gTLD a success. Some gTLDs will succeed and others have already failed. The gTLD market is one of many different gTLDs in various states of evolution. Just on the .COM TLD, there are more deleted domain .COM domain names than there are currently active .COM domain names. The gTLD market isn't a monolith. It is closer in nature to a slowly flowing river.

The biggest flaw of the first round evaluation process was that it seemed to pay very little attention to the marketing budgets and abilities of those promoting the NGTs. That has to be addressed in planning for the second round.

Despite some on the list being against speculation, those people who register speculative domain names are doing something that the people who just talk about such things do not. They are registering domain names. They also promote these new TLDs and act as unpaid sales people. They are an important part of the domain name ecology. Without them, a new TLD will find it much harder to gain registrations.

Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * And Historical DNS Database. Ireland * Over 516 Million Domains Tracked. IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************

--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 04:59, Kaili Kan <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:

However, I also believe that we have at least one point in common. That is, let the market decide. So, I am NOT against ICANN going for another round of new gTLDs. As a matter of fact, I would suggest to eliminate the "rounds", and go for a continuous and unlimited supply of new gTLDs. That is, as long as anybody is willing to pay a fee and wait for a few months of contentious period, he/she may get the new gTLD wanted. This way, the market itself will tell us when the saturation point has been reached. Of course, if this scheme is adopted, measures to protect end-users' interests (and of other parties) as suggested in the CCT-RT report MUST take place simultaneously.

ICANN past practice has been to roll out new rounds without any public-interest preconditions. What gives you confidence that this time, the things that you say MUST happen actually will happen? What is the incentive for ICANN to institute those measures? What are the consequences of not doing them? - Evan

Hi, Evan, Thank you for your comment. Indeed, another round of new gTLDs is unlikely to serve the public interest, especially when disregarding the points raised by ALAC and others. However, in economics there is a famous theory saying the "invisible hand beats the visible one". Thus, as there are powerful parties pushing for it, which may also considered as some sort of "demand", our "visible hand" may not be able to stop it. Nevertheless, there is also a more powerful "invisible hand" which may teach those parties a lesson. That is, the lack of demand of the DNS market place. I suppose there will be much less speculation this time. This is because those speculators are likely to worry if they would be able to sell their inventory to others in today's marketplace. Furthermore, as most of the parked registrations came from China last time, while China's economy is slowing down, there is much less likely that they will have similar enthusiasm for this time. Thus, let the rule of economics teach them a lesson, which may be much better received than ours. Kaili On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 11:58 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 09:10, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi Kaili,

Could you expound on the statement that the new gTLD market is already saturated?

How many of the last round of gTLDs are really successful? Have any of them met the targets anticipated when they applied?

...

How did you arrive at this conclusion. We are working hard through dnsforum.africa to grow the market in Africa and would be keen on new perspectives.

That all depends on what your market and objectives are.

If the goal is to sell as many domains as possible without regard for consequences to the public and to entities providing goods and services on the Internet, the field is never saturated and there's always room for more sales.

If, OTOH, your goal is actually growing the use and prosperity of African consumers and businesses using the Internet, your perspective is very different.

- Evan