[At-Large] [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Planning for Round Two of New gTLDS is open?

Kaili Kan kankaili at gmail.com
Tue Jul 2 12:53:01 UTC 2019

Hi, Barrack, Evan and friends,

Thank you for your responses.

Now, Barrack, we indeed have one point in common.  That is, let the market
decide.  However, what you talked about building the capacity of end users,
is actually the same as creating demand.  In other words, now the problem
is not at the supply side, but at the demand.  This is exactly what we do
not agree upon:  In my view the market is already saturated, while you
believe there is still a substantial unmet demand. However, as you speak
about the effort needed, it seems like you are not so sure about the demand
yourself.  Exactly what is right, again, let the market decide.

On the other hand, Evan, regarding ICANN protecting end-users' interests
when designing the new gTLD program, I do not have more confidence than you
do.  Especially as ICANN is being steered by revenue-thirsty contracted
parties.  Furthermore, ICANN itself relies on such income in order to
survive today's declining market demand.  This is exactly what ALAC is here
for.  Let's speak out load and do our best, but I am not bidding on a great
success.  Anyway, as long as we have spoken and did our best, there is
nothing to regret.

This current situation reminds me of a saying I love the most:  Oh, God,
please give me courage, so I can change the things that can be changed;
please give me resilience, so that I can bear those that could not be
changed; please give me wisdom, so I can tell what could be changed and
what could not.

Thank you all.


On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 5:19 PM Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack at gmail.com>

> Hi Kaili and colleagues,
> Many thanks for your insightful responses, this conversation is very  good
> and should continue. On another note Kaili, i would posit that there is
> room for new TLDs the only problem is limited effort to build the capacity
> of end users on how they can take advantage of the TLDs. I am very
> passionate about end user campaigns and can attest to the fact that when a
> user is properly educated, they not only invest in themselves but in others
> whom they beleive will benefit. I equate a website to a book. The world has
> never been saturated with books hence i don't think the world can be
> saturated with TLDs. I think we need to put more emphasis on how end users
> can benefit from the TLDs. Out of over 300 million domain names across all
> TLDs Africa only has 1,6 million (just under 1 %) We are speaking of a
> Region with approximately 450 million Internet users as such i am not
> willing to buy the idea that the market is saturated. We need to look at
> how to empower undeserved Regions to open up new frontiers for the TLDs.
> Regards
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:59 AM Kaili Kan <kankaili at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi, John,
>> Thank you for your response.
>> I believe that we do not agree on quite a few points, including our views
>> of the CCT-RT report, whether the gTLD market is saturated, how to look at
>> the African and global South DNS market, etc.
>> However, I also believe that we have at least one point in common.  That
>> is, let the market decide.  So, I am NOT against ICANN going for another
>> round of new gTLDs.  As a matter of fact, I would suggest to eliminate the
>> "rounds", and go for a continuous and  unlimited supply of new gTLDs.  That
>> is, as long as anybody is willing to pay a fee and wait for a few months of
>> contentious period, he/she may get the new gTLD wanted.  This way, the
>> market itself will tell us when the saturation point has been reached.  Of
>> course, if this scheme is adopted, measures to protect end-users' interests
>> (and of other parties) as suggested in the CCT-RT report MUST take place
>> simultaneously.
>> Yes?
>> Regards,
>> Kaili
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:40 AM John McCormac <jmcc at hosterstats.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2019 16:16, Kaili Kan wrote:
>>> > Hi, Barrack,
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for asking.  If you look into the CCT-RT report, it will
>>> > clearly show that the gTLD market is already saturated.  As a mater of
>>> > fact, well over half of the new gTLDs are being parked, i.e., not
>>> being
>>> > used, but mostly for speculation.
>>> Hi, Kaili,
>>> The conclusions of the CCT-RT were based on faulty assumptions and poor
>>> methodology (classifying redirects as "parking" etc). There's a
>>> considerable percentage of websites that redirect to the HTTPS version
>>> of their site. Some NGTs are almost completely HTTPS. What the CCT-RT
>>> report called "parking" is often nothing of the sort.
>>> The idea that all unused domain names are speculative registrations is
>>> wrong. Many businesses will protect their brand in relevant TLDs but
>>> will either point the domain name to their primary band site or leave
>>> the domain name undeveloped. ICANN and the IP constituency seems to
>>> think in terms of trademarks and service marks representing the bulk of
>>> brand protection registrations. This is wrong. Small businesses with no
>>> trademarks or service marks represent the bulk of brand protection
>>> registrations. This is why, for example, the most common registration
>>> pair is .ccTLD/.COM.
>>> Many registrars now automatically park undeveloped and unused domain
>>> names on PPC services. Sedo, Parkingcrew and others have a registrar
>>> parking services to monetise these unused domain names. However, when
>>> the ordinary user lands on one of these sites, they only see PPC
>>> adverts. They don't know if the site is a speculative registration or an
>>> undeveloped domain name.
>>> Some of the NGT registries chose to make discounting a central element
>>> of their business model and these heavily discounted registrations
>>> attracted problematic registrations that did not renew. The usage of
>>> these domain names was almost purely gambling and adult affiliate
>>> landers. The methodology relied upon by CCT-RT couldn't distinguish an
>>> affiliate landing page from an active website. Thus many of the NGTs in
>>> the report on which CCT-RT relied had real usage rates that were often
>>> below 10%. This usage percentage has been supported by the subsequent
>>> non-renewal rates in many of these NGTs.
>>> Highly speculative registrations in a new TLD generally drop on the
>>> first renewal. This is the Junk Dump where those domain names that could
>>> not be sold are dropped. Many of the higher priced NGTs did quite well
>>> on their first renewal (50% to 78% renewals). The main focus of
>>> speculative registrations is .COM TLD. That has not changed since the
>>> NGTs were launched.
>>> Grouping all new gTLDs as a single TLD is wrong. Some of the new gTLDs
>>> have ccTLD-like characteristics and equally high usage rates. Others are
>>> almost completely filled with low quality landers, PPC and holding pages.
>>> > Regarding Africa, and the global South in general, I don't think the
>>> > problem is a lack of supply.  That is, the economic and social status
>>> > makes the demand relatively weak, and maybe also lack of necessary
>>> > skills, to apply for and run gTLDs.  Thus, instead of supplying more
>>> new
>>> > gTLDs, ICANN should provide assistance to Africa and the global South
>>> > for that.
>>> The Africa and global South markets are extremely large. In terms of
>>> coverage and populations. Many of the ccTLDs are still in their early
>>> phases of development. In a recent gTLD website survey, there were more
>>> gTLD websites by country of IP address in the UK than there were on the
>>> entire continent of Africa. Even mapping gTLD website usage by IP can be
>>> problematic as A Dutch hosting company is using a lot of Seychelles IP
>>> addresses.
>>> The African and global South markets are developing in different ways to
>>> the global North markets. This is because a lot of Internet use in those
>>> markets are mobile phone based whereas the global North markets
>>> developed from desktop Internet and then incorporated mobile Internet.
>>> The African and global South markets often rely more on mobile Internet
>>> and that makes the development, and usage of domain names and TLDs in
>>> those markets different to the usual expectations. It might be a good
>>> thing for any planning to examine these dynamics in the African and
>>> global South markets. (Grouping the continent of Africa as a single
>>> market rather than a set of markets is not a good thing.)
>>> I'm not sure that the gTLD market is saturated. It is the registrants
>>> and users that make a gTLD a success. Some gTLDs will succeed and others
>>> have already failed. The gTLD market is one of many different gTLDs in
>>> various states of evolution. Just on the .COM TLD, there are more
>>> deleted domain .COM domain names than there are currently active .COM
>>> domain names. The gTLD market isn't a monolith. It is closer in nature
>>> to a slowly flowing river.
>>> The biggest flaw of the first round evaluation process was that it
>>> seemed to pay very little attention to the marketing budgets and
>>> abilities of those promoting the NGTs. That has to be addressed in
>>> planning for the second round.
>>> Despite some on the list being against speculation, those people who
>>> register speculative domain names are doing something that the people
>>> who just talk about such things do not. They are registering domain
>>> names. They also promote these new TLDs and act as unpaid sales people.
>>> They are an important part of the domain name ecology. Without them, a
>>> new TLD will find it much harder to gain registrations.
>>> Regards...jmcc
>>> --
>>> **********************************************************
>>> John McCormac  *  e-mail: jmcc at hosterstats.com
>>> MC2            *  web: http://www.hosterstats.com/
>>> 22 Viewmount   *  Domain Registrations Statistics
>>> Waterford      *  And Historical DNS Database.
>>> Ireland        *  Over 516 Million Domains Tracked.
>>> IE             *  Skype: hosterstats.com
>>> **********************************************************
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>> https://www.avg.com
> --
> Barrack O. Otieno
> +254721325277
> +254733206359
> Skype: barrack.otieno
> PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20190702/c203dbba/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list