<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Thanks John, your posts are always informative. I know you have some structural issues with the registry/registrar model which has disadvantaged some smaller markets and gTLDs. Do you have specific thoughts on "individual end user" interests in the new .COM
contract? What points do you think would be most important for At-Large to make. As you say, roundabout ways to dealing with different issues aren't ideal and price caps to support defensive registrations doesn't seem like the answer to defensive registrations.
What would we like to see if this contract goes forward beyond the commitments that have been made already from the new contract and the investment in research and education on SSR? DNS Abuse measures? Trusted notifier stuff like Donuts has? What would you
like to see given your facility with the numbers?</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of John McCormac <jmcc@hosterstats.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 7, 2020 3:55 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CPWG] Verisign</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">On 07/01/2020 18:03, Jonathan Zuck wrote:<br>
> This may have changed but the CCT report found far fewer defensive <br>
> registrations in the new gTLDs than expected because the volume would <br>
> just be too high. Instead, other means of monitoring, etc., were <br>
> employed. Rather than accept defensive registrations as a solution, <br>
> should we perhaps suggest blocking as an alternative? Regulating an <br>
> entire market to facilitate an unfortunate activity seems wrong.<br>
<br>
The problem with using the CCT-RT report, Jonathan, is that the CCT-RT <br>
were all knowledgeable about everything other than domain name metrics, <br>
measuring web usage and development in TLDs and understanding domain <br>
name markets. The opinion polls of "awareness" of new gTLDs were <br>
difficult to reconcile with reality because, as had been demonstrated by <br>
the sales of new gTLD domain names, the public was, and still is, <br>
largely unaware of the new gTLDs.<br>
<br>
A lot of work went into dealing with intellectual property and <br>
trademarks prior to the launch of the new gTLDs. The problem is that the <br>
bulk of brand protection activity is not based on trademarks or service <br>
marks. It is from small businesses protecting their brands in other <br>
relevant TLDs to the TLD where they operate their primary website.<br>
<br>
Most of the new gTLDs were aimed at potential markets that were much <br>
smaller than the artificial scarcity created by Domain Tasting <br>
suggested. The reason for this was that ICANN's multi-stakeholder model <br>
meant that little could be done about Domain Tasting for years. The <br>
deleting domain names were also targeted in Domain Tasting. The public <br>
couldn't get access to deleting domain names and this created an <br>
artificial scarcity of "good" domain names.<br>
<br>
The numbers are horrifying and I listed them, by month and by year, in <br>
the first few chapters of the Domnomics book and those chapters and the <br>
statistics on Domain Tasting in .COM over 2005 to 2009 are free to read <br>
on the "Look Inside" link on Amazon ( <br>
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0827FL1SW">https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0827FL1SW</a> ) . This wasn't domainers
<br>
registering a few domain names. This was industrialised plunder of <br>
COM/NET/ORG by a small number of registrars. These weren't domain name <br>
speculators with a few hundred domain names. These were ICANN accredited <br>
registrars that were registering and deleting millions of domain names <br>
each day.<br>
<br>
ICANN made things worse by wandering off down the yellow brick road of <br>
"competition". ICANN, it seemed, existed in its own little bubble. To <br>
the public, it seemed that ICANN couldn't even understand that it was a <br>
simple "supply and demand" problem rather than a "competition" problem. <br>
The PDP on Domain Tasting helped but its statistics only focused on a <br>
single month and it only launched when Domain Tasting was completely out <br>
of control in the main legacy gTLDs. The real damage to the credibility <br>
of gTLDs had been done and the growth in the ccTLDs had been kickstarted <br>
by this episode. Eventually, ICANN did the right thing with Domain Tasting.<br>
<br>
Up to the launch of .MOBI, most new TLDs got a financial boost from <br>
defensive registrations. But that all changed for the new gTLDs. Some of <br>
the registries held back thousands of potentially valuable domain names <br>
for themselves. This had a major impact on the sales in these new gTLDs.<br>
<br>
As a result of the lack of sales, some of the new gTLD registries <br>
indulged in heavy discounting to inflate their zone files. The problem <br>
with this is that these registrations don't renew well. It had to be <br>
repeatedly pointed out to the CCT-RT that the new gTLDs with these <br>
discounted registrations were highly abnormal and that the claimed <br>
"parking" levels in some of these new gTLDs were wrong. (The "parking" <br>
report on which CCT-RT relied was claiming bluechip legacy gTLD/ccTLD <br>
levels of "parking" in bubble gTLDs.) Some of these bubble gTLDs lost <br>
over 80% of their domain names within a year. That does not happen with <br>
bluechip gTLDs and ccTLDs.<br>
<br>
Suggesting blocking as an alternative is a continuation of confusion. <br>
Brand gTLDs were meant to solve that problem and give brand owners their <br>
own gTLD so that they would not have to face this problem again. And yet <br>
the bulk of the registry agreement terminations since 2014 have been for <br>
brand gTLDs. The reason, strange as it seems, is ICANN's decision to add <br>
a cost to the AGP process.<br>
<br>
Perhaps people don't realise the part that the abuse of the AGP in <br>
Domain Tasting played in encouraging defensive registrations. Brands and <br>
IP were massively targeted by Domain Tasters. Once a cost was added to <br>
the AGP process, a lot of that activity declined and while this form of <br>
DNS abuse still exists, it is nowhere near on the scale it was when AGP <br>
was being abused and the UDRP is once more a usable tool as brand owners <br>
don't have to deal with tens of millions of potentially infringing <br>
domain names each month that are registered and deleted before the UDRP <br>
can be filed.<br>
<br>
One important point about Verisign has not been mentioned yet. That is <br>
the launch of the .WEB gTLD. As a gTLD, the .NET has been in long-term <br>
decline since the end of Domain Tasting in 2009. The .WEB is the Sword <br>
of Damocles to a lot of borderline new gTLDs. It is also the one new <br>
gTLD where the concerns over brand protection are far more global than <br>
those with some of the smaller new gTLDs.<br>
<br>
Regards...jmcc<br>
-- <br>
**********************************************************<br>
John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com<br>
MC2 * web: <a href="http://www.hosterstats.com/">http://www.hosterstats.com/</a><br>
22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics<br>
Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names<br>
Ireland * <a href="https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO">https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO</a><br>
IE * Skype: hosterstats.com<br>
**********************************************************<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CPWG mailing list<br>
CPWG@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>