[CPWG] Today's call and the ccTLD/gTLD trends/Following ccTLDs on DNS Abuse

Sun May 1 04:44:57 UTC 2022

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 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
> **********************************************************
> 
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> 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.