There's also the web usage/development issue.The percentage of developed sites in the new gTLDs is often much lower than that in the legacy gTLDs and the ccTLDs.
That's the business. If the same regulations were applied to .COM/NET then both gTLDs would lose a lot of registrations.
The usage tells us otherwise.
For sure.
Hell no!
Truth.
I need to read your book about this.
So this forced people to use ccTLDs since there were literally no good .com or .net domains available?
That's crazy!
I guess it was too late as the ball was rolling.
They are stuck at 25 - 26 million.
Yes, new domain extensions are not used much.
I'm sure Verisign would not that.
Web usage and registrations are two very different things because the zone file counts are no longer a reliable metric due to heavy discounting. One of the worst examples was .LOAN. At its peak, it had about 2M registrations. It only had a few hundred developed websites.
Yep. All the good dropping domain names were being taken so people found that it was easier to get the domain name they wanted in their own ccTLD. Even if the ones in .COM/NET were on sale, why pay thousands of Dollars/Euros when the same domain name in the local ccTLD is available for regfee? That's the question that ICANN never asked itself.
Hard to believe but it would have been worse only for Dell taking legal action against some of the bigger tasting registrars. There are glaciers that move quicker than ICANN.That's crazy!
The first new gTLDs from the 2012 round started go live in late 2013 and early 2014. It was a completely different market almost five years after large-scale Domain Tasting had ended. Much of the demand that had been there five years previously was gone because the artificial shortage was gone.
The zone counts are around 23 million. That number is kept inflated by heavy discounting by the larger new gTLDs. Some of these zones can see over 70% of domain names from the same day's zone from the previous year completely replaced. That's around 70% of the domain names from a zone in 2020 not being present in the same zone/new gTLD for 2021.
The heavily discounted ones are the worst for web usage. But there are some new gTLDs that actually have relatively good web usage. The thing about web usage is that it is different from the zone file count. Some of the legacy gTLDs and ccTLDs can have web usage in the 30% to 40% range. It depends on the target market and the ecnomics of that market. A strong economy means that more people will be selling to each other online. That's why ccTLDs have higher web usage as most business is local. A gTLD is quite a different case as it is a composite of a lot of country level markets. With .COM, the main market is that of the US so it has strong web usage.
There's a lot of politics involved with contract negotiations. Gradual increases tend to be more common with larger gTLDs. The downside for these increases is that they have a worse effect on renewals in less well developed economies. This is the niche that .XYZ and .ONLINE have made their own. In those less well developed economies, the cost of a .XYZ is lower than that of a .COM. At a registrar level, many of these countries have no accredited ICANN registrars so all gTLD registration activity is outsourced to big players like Godaddy, Newfold Digital or Tucows.
It is better than many of the new gTLDs and also slightly better than some in terms of web usage. The problem is that it is difficult to measure usage from a registrations graph as they are different things. It also has a very different market (a lot of US regs) than some of the other larger new gTLDs.This is how a healthy new top level domain looks
.App is a shining example of a healthy and stable top level domain.
View attachment 5524
This is how a healthy new top level domain looks - Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
.App is a shining example of a healthy and stable top level domain. One thing that has become clear since new top level domains came onto the scene nearly a decade ago is that you can’t judge a TLD by the number of registrations. Registries have played all sorts of games to make themselves look […]domainnamewire.com
This is how a healthy new top level domain looks
.App is a shining example of a healthy and stable top level domain.
View attachment 5524
This is how a healthy new top level domain looks - Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
.App is a shining example of a healthy and stable top level domain. One thing that has become clear since new top level domains came onto the scene nearly a decade ago is that you can’t judge a TLD by the number of registrations. Registries have played all sorts of games to make themselves look […]
Makes sense.
This probably still happens today.
ICANN never gets it right.
They do move so slow.Hard to believe but it would have been worse only for Dell taking legal action against some of the bigger tasting registrars. There are glaciers that move quicker than ICANN.
Did nobody understand this at ICANN?
So it's just crap and spam regs getting replaced?
There are but I can only think of three; .CLUB, .APP, and .DESIGN.
Ohhh what's the renewal cost?
You mean reseller agreements for .com, .bet, and .org?
Probably has accelerated since then. A lot of people who register in ccTLDs don't seem to want to register in .COM so the domain name that they register only exists in the ccTLD and in no other TLDs. The more that a ccTLD takes over in its own country, the more common those unique domain names. This is why it is sometimes difficult to sell a .COM to the registrant of a ccTLD equivalent.
Sometimes it does but in this case the whole multi-stakeholder model (registries, registrars, Intellectual Property, At Large, Civil Society) worked against it taking prompt action.
Some did but there was a kind of irrational exuberance where a lot of people had bought into the idea of New gTLDs. The projections did not seem to be based on any knowledge of the domain name industry.They do move so slow.
Did nobody understand this at ICANN?
Some of it. There's a lot of advertising, highly speculative registrations and blackhat SEO registrations with scraped content.
Some of the larger new gTLDs have evolved into two parallel TLDs (the genuine TLD and the heavily discounted registrations that don't renew). The problem with some of the smaller new gTLDs was that when they resorted to discounting, they swamped any natural development.
Not sure of the renewal costs but they generally are more than the discounted regfee.
That's another problem. There are registrars who provide "registration as a service" to their resellers but the domain names are still registered via the registrar. ICANN technically only has a legal agreement with the registrar rather than the reseller. The reseller market, based on the monthly gTLD transactions report that I publish is about 24% of the gTLD market. There is talk in ICANN groups of the registry/registrar/reseller model but these things take years to resolve and the hard part is distinguishing registrars and resellers. A reseller may not be an ICANN accredited registrar but may have a substantial number of ccTLD domain names as a ccTLD registrar. Some of the larger registrar operator brands have hundreds of hosting brands and some of them are accredited ccTLD registrars. The big problem for ICANN is when a reseller disappears and the gTLD registrant goes looking for their domain name. They end up having to deal with the RAS registrar that had the agreement with the reseller.
That was my point, not every ntld is a dog.
I've seen this many times. Often ccTLD owners don't care about .com. In fact they don't trust it.
Yes I've noticed that.
That is much larger than I thought. Makes sense if I think about all the web hosting companies out there.
I should launch a ccTLD registrar.
So?
. The only point was, not all ntld are bombs.
So?
*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators
