[CPWG] Today's call and the ccTLD/gTLD trends/Following ccTLDs on DNS Abuse
Roberto Gaetano
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 28 08:11:09 UTC 2022
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 at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at 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 at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at 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 at hosterstats.com<mailto:jmcc at 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 at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at 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 at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20220428/5605d9ee/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list