[CPWG] The MEAC gTLDs markets (why wait until next year?)
John McCormac
jmcc at hosterstats.com
Fri Sep 15 16:34:11 UTC 2023
On 15/09/2023 16:04, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> John
>
> While I agree that the focus on the 3 Rs might be misplaced I’m not sure
> that it’s such a negative.
It is the way that the market evolved, Michele,
In some respects, it is an extension of the original registry-registrant
model
> Wholesale registrars have resellers in pretty much every country and
> region. It’s not going to be economically to become accredited and carry
> gTLDs directly if you’re in a very small market. Conversely it’s not
> worth the investment for larger registrars to get directly accredited
> for many of the smaller or more complex ccTLDs.
That's the problem with smaller markets. There's a kind of lack of shelf
space (the registrar not having the local ccTLD as an option) for
registrars selling to those markets so the registrants are more likely
to stick with the local ccTLD and after a while, even with the complex
rules, the local ccTLD will begin to overtake gTLD registrations as the
market flips to being ccTLD dominated. After that, the only
cost-effective way into such a market for a non-local registrar is to
buy a leading hosters in that market. This has led to Godaddy having a
major presence in the .UK ccTLD among others.
This is the .COM website/country spectrum for one of the large
registrations as a service registrars:
| AD | 6 |
| AE | 34 |
| AL | 2 |
| AO | 1 |
| AR | 117 |
| AT | 223 |
| AU | 2,692 |
| AZ | 4 |
| BA | 3 |
| BB | 4 |
| BD | 26 |
| BE | 49 |
| BG | 1,364 |
| BH | 1 |
| BM | 1 |
| BO | 2 |
| BR | 286 |
| BS | 36 |
| BY | 3 |
| BZ | 4 |
| CA | 165,045 |
| CH | 110 |
| CL | 26 |
| CM | 2 |
| CN | 1,384 |
| CO | 92 |
| CR | 14 |
| CW | 19 |
| CY | 19 |
| CZ | 58 |
| DE | 6,224 |
| DK | 523 |
| DM | 34 |
| DO | 1 |
| DZ | 1 |
| EC | 10 |
| EE | 8 |
| EG | 5 |
| ES | 885 |
| EU | 248 |
| FI | 180 |
| FJ | 2 |
| FR | 1,299 |
| GB | 2,632 |
| GD | 2 |
| GE | 5 |
| GH | 3 |
| GI | 1 |
| GR | 24 |
| GT | 7 |
| HK | 1,810 |
| HN | 12 |
| HR | 7 |
| HU | 62 |
| ID | 124 |
| IE | 1,786 |
| IL | 113 |
| IM | 1 |
| IN | 532 |
| IQ | 32 |
| IR | 51 |
| IS | 19 |
| IT | 764 |
| JM | 2 |
| JO | 3 |
| JP | 9,338 |
| KE | 5 |
| KH | 1 |
| KR | 59 |
| KW | 39 |
| KZ | 13 |
| LA | 1 |
| LB | 4 |
| LK | 5 |
| LT | 47 |
| LU | 22 |
| LV | 11 |
| MA | 9 |
| MD | 12 |
| ME | 1 |
| MK | 2 |
| MO | 7 |
| MT | 46 |
| MU | 2 |
| MX | 42 |
| MY | 687 |
| NG | 2 |
| NI | 1 |
| NL | 1,124 |
| NO | 39 |
| NP | 3 |
| NZ | 43 |
| OM | 3 |
| PA | 64 |
| PE | 11 |
| PH | 23 |
| PK | 13 |
| PL | 69 |
| PR | 5 |
| PS | 6 |
| PT | 75 |
| PY | 21 |
| QA | 5 |
| RE | 1 |
| RO | 117 |
| RS | 13 |
| RU | 122 |
| RW | 1 |
| SA | 45 |
| SC | 161 |
| SE | 301 |
| SG | 1,159 |
| SI | 23 |
| SK | 8 |
| SM | 1 |
| SR | 1 |
| SS | 1 |
| SV | 9 |
| SY | 2 |
| TH | 450 |
| TN | 2 |
| TR | 259 |
| TW | 1,575 |
| UA | 116 |
| US | 566,920 |
| UY | 7 |
| UZ | 1 |
| VE | 9 |
| VG | 59 |
| VN | 369 |
| VU | 4 |
| YE | 1 |
| ZA | 153 |
| ZW | 2 |
Not all of them are necessarily in-country hosters but it demonstrates
the effectiveness of the registrations as a service model. The problem
for ICANN is that many of these hosters will never become ICANN
accredited registrars. (That bulk transfer fee on more than 50K regs
might be acting as a kind of additional tax on a large hoster intending
to become a gTLD registrar if I am reading it correctly. If this is the
case, and ICANN doesn't make an allowance for hosters becoming
accredited and moving their existing registrations, ICANN could be
deterring hosters from becoming accredited.)
This is the country spectrum of the same registrar for a well known
European ccTLD:
| AR | 1 |
| AT | 4 |
| AU | 2 |
| BE | 13 |
| BG | 9 |
| BR | 1 |
| CA | 8,957 |
| CH | 1 |
| CL | 1 |
| CN | 3 |
| CW | 1 |
| DE | 157 |
| DK | 1 |
| ES | 9 |
| EU | 9 |
| FI | 8 |
| FR | 21 |
| GB | 2,105 |
| GR | 1 |
| HK | 2 |
| HU | 3 |
| IE | 198 |
| IL | 1 |
| IN | 3 |
| IS | 5 |
| IT | 7 |
| JP | 37 |
| LU | 1 |
| NG | 1 |
| NL | 32 |
| NO | 1 |
| NZ | 1 |
| PL | 7 |
| RO | 2 |
| RS | 2 |
| RU | 1 |
| SG | 17 |
| SI | 1 |
| TW | 3 |
| UA | 4 |
| US | 6,865 |
| VG | 4 |
| ZA | 1 |
Godaddy's approach is more like a direct to customer sales model and it
has 206 countries for its .COM spectrum. Some of those will be
historical registrants and very small businesses with a single domain
name. Due to takeovers, it has a considerable number of that ccTLD's
registrations.
> ICANN, however, has always been fixated with the physical presence of
> registrars (and registries) in a particular market as if it was some
> kind of magical indicator.
ICANN simply doesn't understand the hosting market.
This is not surprising because ICANN isn't in the hosting market and is
largely concerned with domain names. However, domain names have become
commoditised to such an extent that they are a small component of the
hosting market. ICANN's only source of data (publically, at least) seems
to be the registrar reports and some of them frequently have errors that
go unnoticed by ICANN.
The danger with the recent price increases in .COM/NET is that some of
the gTLDs are pricing themselves out of the market in developing
countries and are making the ccTLD the more attractive option for
registrants.
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.
www.avast.com
More information about the CPWG
mailing list