Tag Archives: country code Top Level Domains

Afnic Shows Correlation Between Creation Of French Companies and Domain Registrations

cAFNIC logoThere is a high correlation between the registrations of domain names and companies being created, the latest Afnic Domain Name Industry Report has found.

From January 2007 until mid-2013, Afnic found there is a high correlation that is consistent throughout the years. However there are aberrations such as in 2008/2009, the rate declined due to the introduction of the auto-entrepreneur status in January 2009 with a large number of people opting for this tax status Then in December 2011 with the opening of .fr to all Europeans and then again with the introduction of domains with IDN characters also saw a drop in the correlation.

AFNIC FR Domain Registrations Correlation Graph

Afnic says there are two conclusions that can be drawn from their research, these being that most new companies integrate “internet” issues in their strategies by registering at least one domain name and that the domain name is usually a .fr domain.

This reflects research conducted by other ccTLDs, with the most recent being for .au that was released this week (see here or here) that showed around 56 percent of Australians, or 74 percent of those who register a domain, choose .au for their online presence.

ICANN: Consultation on ccTLD Delegation and Redelegation Performance Standards

ICANN logoPurpose (Brief): A consultation on developing performance standards for Delegation and Redelegation of a ccTLD.

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract

(SA1301-12-CN-0035) between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) to maintain the continuity and stability of services related to certain interdependent Internet technical management functions, known collectively as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority calls for a public consultation from all interested and affected parties to help satisfy the following objective:

    C.2.8 Performance Standards — Within six (6) months of award, the Contractor shall develop performance standards, in collaboration with all interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3, for each of the IANA functions as set forth at C.2.9 to C.2.9.4 and post via a website.

This consultation involves the operation of the Delegations and Redelegations of Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) described in the IANA functions contract as the following:

C.2.9.2.c Delegation and Redelegation of a Country Code Top Level-Domain (ccTLD) –The Contractor shall apply existing policy frameworks in processing requests related to the delegation and redelegation of a ccTLD, such as RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Principles And Guidelines For The Delegation And Administration Of Country Code Top Level Domains, and any further clarification of these policies by interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3. If a policy framework does not exist to cover a specific instance, the Contractor will consult with the interested and affected parties, as enumerated in Section C.1.3; relevant public authorities; and governments on any recommendation that is not within or consistent with an existing policy framework. In making its recommendations, the Contractor shall also take into account the relevant national frameworks and applicable laws of the jurisdiction that the TLD registry serves. The Contractor shall submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation Report.

Section II: Background

This is one of a series of consultations to establish performance standards for the delivery of the IANA functions, as described in contract SA1301-12-CN-0035.

Section III: Document and Resource Links

Comment/Reply Periods

Comment Open:     15 January 2013
Comment Close:     28 February 2013
Close Time (UTC):     23:59     Public Comment Announcement
Reply Open:     1 March 2013     To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
Reply Close:     21 March 2013     View Comments Submitted
Close Time (UTC):     23:59     Report of Public Comments

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/cctld-drd-15jan13-en.htm

Issues For New gTLDs And ccTLDs Broaden Their Appeal Focus of US News

Domain names have been the focus of articles in America’s two leading quality newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, over the last few days.The New York Times looked at country code Top Level Domains that have attempted to broaden their base by exploiting their code. For example, the attempt by the .CO (Colombia) registry to market themselves as an alternative to .COM and .ME (Montenegro) to promote its use by social media sites and bloggers.With more than 600,000 registrations of .CO domains in over 200 countries, the registry notes they hope to reach five million registrations with five years.Meanwhile The Washington Post looks at the expansion of new generic Top Level Domains saying “the trusty .com domain … is about to face vast new competition that will dramatically transform the Web as we know it.”The article looks at potentially controversial gTLD strings such as .ABORTION, .ISLAM or .MUHAMMAD and asks who will get to operate these controversial gTLDs. “Can the Ku Klux Klan own .NAZI on free speech grounds, or will a Jewish organization run the domain and permit only educational Web sites – say, remember.nazi or antidefamation.nazi? And who’s going to get .AMAZON – the Internet retailer or Brazil?”While there are bound to be some controversial gTLDs applied for, it is hard to imagine the demand for many of their suggestions. Maybe .AMAZON could be in demand.One controversial gTLD could be .GAY with two groups likely to apply for the rights to operate it, while .ECO also has two groups interested in applying for this string, one of which is “a nonprofit chaired by former vice president Al Gore; the other from a group founded by former Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev.”Not being based in the US, it is hard to fully comprehend whether the concerns expressed in .GAY are reasonable.Scott Seitz, the CEO of DotGay LLC, “who is gay, said the simple idea of operating the domain devoted to the gay movement exerts its own pressures. ‘I have a responsibility, and I am in awe of that,'” Seitz told The Washington Post, “adding that he and his business partners intend on donating two-thirds of their revenue to various social causes. ‘I buried 40 friends in 18 months [who died from complications related to HIV]. Having .GAY is scary, it could be crazy. I’ve already told people to get steel doors and window bars for security to protect against anti-gay organizations that wouldn’t want dot-gay to happen.'”To read the articles in full, see:
For Countries That Own Shorter Web Site Suffixes, Extra Cash From Abroad
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/technology/07dotco.htmlRush is on for custom domain name suffixes
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/06/AR2011020603940.html

The National ccTLD Disputes: Between State Actors and Non-State Actors by Y.J. Park

Since 1985, non-state actors under Jon Postel’s leadership have experimented creating virtual national spaces on the Internet through so-called “country code top level domain names” (ccTLDs). There are 251 ccTLDs on the Internet. In 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – the newly established coordination body for Internet addresses including ccTLDs – stressed out the principle of private sector leadership instead of public sector administration of Internet identifiers. ICANN’s coordination of ccTLDs required state actors to comply with the principle of private sector leadership in a top-down manner.As of 2009, the question of how to govern ccTLDs is still disputed at the national level between state actors and non-state actors, with state actors starting to reassert their power over ccTLDs, ignoring the principle of private sector leadership recommended by ICANN. This study presents five different national ccTLDs dispute cases, to investigate why national ccTLDs disputes have increased after the establishment of ICANN and how are state actors trying to regain control over ccTLDs.To download and read this article by Y. J. Park in the International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, see:
ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_10-13-2009.pdf

ICANN: Webinars: Synchronised IDN ccTLDs

ICANN posted on 22 March 2010 a Proposed Implementation Plan for Synchronized IDN ccTLDs.Synchronized IDN ccTLDs are described by situations in the Fast Track Process where:

  • IDN ccTLDs are requested in more than one official language or script in a country/territory,
  • the requests for corresponding multiple strings are considered equivalent,
  • delegation would solve a significant problem for Internet users, and
  • users accessing domains under any of the equivalent IDN ccTLDs expect that such domains will resolve to the same address or value.

There are several comments in the still open Public Comment forum for the proposed plan icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#synch. In addition, several independent observations and requests for clarification have been made by the technical community. In order to address these, ICANN has published a set of Questions & Answers (Q&A) and is conducting two webinars. The webinars will include a presentation of the Proposed Implementation Plan and allow for questions by interested participants.The webinars will be conducted on Thursday 15 April, 2010 at 01:00 UTC and at 14:00 UTC. The two webinars will contain the same content but are set to facilitate participation across time zones. Registration and more information about webinar participation can be found at the ICANN e-learning site.Participants should read the Q&A and the Implementation Plan for Synchronized IDN ccTLDs prior to the webinar.The webinars will be recorded and the recordings will be published in the public comment forum for the Proposed Implementation Plan. The public comment period was originally scheduled to end on 13 April, and is now extended through 17 April at 00:00 UTC.This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-08apr10-en.htm