Hi Andy,

The primary difference is that the Verisign classification method is machine-based and is evaluated for each domain independently, while the EURid approach leveraged samples that humans classified.

I don’t see a reference for the technical analysis of your study. Thus, I am not sure what statistical classification model, if any, you used.

I am a strong advocate of machine-based analyses for domain names, but you have not made a convincing argument as to why, for this study, machine-based classification is better than human.

Verisign utilizes our own proprietary process for classifying websites

So the statistical methodology is not proprietary but the process is? Why the secrecy?

The EURid approach classifies domains which immediately redirect or “forward” according to their ultimate destination. In contrast, the Verisign method for website classification identifies domains that forward to an alternative destination as a “Redirect.”

I am not sure I understand the difference between the two studies.

Heightened speculation in the new gTLD space

Is the speculation about domain name prices, about the viability of new gTLD parking, or both? Is either of them bad in your opinion? Why?

How sensitive are your results to .xyz’s alleged campaign to automatically registered XYZ domains?

Eurid’s approach and categories are not good references. It was a manual categorisation of a sample of approximately 5,000 domains on a ccTLD with approximately 3.7 million domains. As a sample, the 5,000 domains might show coarse trends but important and subtle trends such as duplicate content, clone websites, framed websites, domains for sale are missed. These trends are difficult to detect efficiently with manual processing. With an automated full TLD survey, these categories are somewhat easier to detect. The .EU market is essentially a set of country level markets overlaid with a smaller regional (EU-wide) market rather than global market. The results for .EU ccTLD when analysed at a country level in conjunction with the set of major TLDs and ccTLDs active in that market can display very different characteristics to a small sample of the whole ccTLD considered in isolation. Some EU countries such as Germany would have over a million .EU domains registered where as others might only have ten thousand or less. In terms of a country level market’s domain footprint, the .EU ccTLD registrations in that country might only occupy a few percent of the footprint while the country’s ccTLD and .COM would have over 80%. The new gTLDs, apart from the regional ones, are typically global TLDs targeting a global market and they are often very small players in country level markets.

Grouping the results of a number of new gTLDs together like this can be somewhat misleading in that while all new gTLDs are in their first year of operation, some of the new gTLDs are at different phases in their lifecycle. And a few are developing at a faster pace than others.

The level of PPC parking in .XYZ was 90.27% according to the .XYZ web usage survey that HosterStats.com ran on 26th June as part of a web usage survey of the top ten new gTLDs. Because .XYZ is much larger than the other individual new gTLDs, using cumulative numbers (all new gTLDs) for each category will skew the percentages. The differences between the new gTLDs and more mature TLDs are clear from the 110,000 domain .COM web usage survey and others TLD web usage surveys that were run in July 2014. Some new gTLDs are beginning to take on the early characteristics of a Truckstop TLD where users go before being redirected to the registrant’s website in another TLD. Part of this is down to Search Engine Optimisation where a registrant will register keywords in the new gTLD and redirect traffic to their main website. The registrant will maintain their primary brand website in .COM or a ccTLD. This keyword redirection strategy was most notable in the relaunch of .CO ccTLD as a global TLD. It is somewhat different to simple brand protection redirects.

Brand protection redirects are often exact match redirects to websites using the same domain name string in another TLD. Brand protection registrations patterns in new gTLDs are also slightly different to those in legacy gTLDs. The typical Intellectual Property/brand owner approach prior to the launch of the new gTLDs was defensive in nature. An IP owner would register the brand in the main gTLDs and the ccTLDs in which it wanted to do business. With so many new gTLDs hitting the market at the same time, the costs of a defensive strategy registering brands in each new gTLD have risen. Brand protection has drifted from defense towards enforcement and this has reduced the level of brand protection registration activity in some new gTLDs.

End user speculation in the new gTLDs is not as prominent as it was in the launch of previous large TLDs (.EU, .MOBI, .ASIA, .CO). Some of the new gTLDs have had large numbers of premium domain names reserved by the registries or registry affiliated companies. This dampened speculation in those new gTLDs. The registration fee in some new gTLDs is a multiple of the .COM registration fee and this also reduces speculation. The new gTLDs generally have a percentage of their registered domains for sale. Some are premium domains being offered for sale by registries and registry affiliated companies but there there are also end users who have put domain names up for sale. It could be argued that premium domain name reservations by the registries and affliated companies constitute a form of speculation but the general intention of the registries seems to be that they will be drip fed into the market to maintain end user interest in the new gTLD.

On the PPC angle, many registrars now automatically park undeveloped domain names on PPC landing pages. This is, to some extent, temporary PPC while a website is being developed. While there is an element of PPC as a business, PPC in newly launched TLDs tends to have different characteristics to that of PPC in mature TLDs. In terms of direct navigation traffic, .COM is still the winner and the level of public awareness of the new gTLDs means that direct navigation traffic will be far lower than that of .COM or ccTLDs.

The Verisign results are more reliable than those of Eurid as they are full TLD surveys rather than samples. The categorisations need some refinement. The Business category is somewhat nebulous. The level of e-commerce enabled sites in a TLD is always going to be a small fraction of number of business websites due to the brochureware nature of most business websites.