Blackout Week Protest

[David Goldstein]

Here we go again. Domain Investors thinking of themselves and not the broader internet using public. Second level registrations will benefit. It makes a .au domain name more readable. With much internet use and web browsing done on mobile devices, just adding that extra 4 characters of a URL can assist the internet user greatly. Most mobile devices cope with 30-40 characters. Most URLs are much longer.

Yes, there can be costs if the holder of the .com.au immediately changes to a .au domain. But most likely the change can be done over time, years even, and most costs can be done as materials are reprinted/republished. For the technical side of things, yes, this can cost but in the grand scheme of a business it's not going to be a huge expense.

For brand owners the second level registrations mean better branding. On the second Names Policy Panel I was on I asked for research to be done of large companies, including Telstra and ANZ, who then both long used .com domains for their marketing instead of .au, although today Telstra seems to use .au. So why do, or did, 2 of Australia's largest companies prefer .com? Shorter? Consistent branding internationally? Who knows. None of us do as the research I asked for was never done.

I also have nothing to gain personally. And I was the only one calling for second level registrations through the last 3 Names Policy Panels.

And it's nice to see that those here consistently ignore the individuals who can't register .au domain names. And no, don't bother with the .id.au idea. It's an unloved flop. Besides, if I've got a hobby or interest that becomes a business it's no use. So why are the rights of investors higher than those of individuals?

And it's nice to see the .nz experience is still being misrepresented. As Jay Daley posted on Domainer:
"It was almost exactly three years ago that the second level in .nz was opened up and currently of the ~692k domains in .nz, ~129k are directly at the second level, so close to 19%.

"Also, of the ~129k .nz domains, ~27k do not have a corresponding .co.nz or .org.nz etc
It was almost exactly three years ago that the second level in .nz was opened up and currently of the ~692k domains in .nz, ~129k are directly at the second level, so close to 19%.

"Also, of the ~129k .nz domains, ~27k do not have a corresponding .co.nz or .org.nz etc"

And then:
"And I should add that .co.nz are ~499k and so .nz is actually ~26% of .co.nz and that percentage continues to grow."

How is that a failure?

 

[robert]

Brilliant post, David.

 

[Shane]

For brand owners the second level registrations mean better branding. On the second Names Policy Panel I was on I asked for research to be done of large companies, including Telstra and ANZ, who then both long used .com domains for their marketing instead of .au, although today Telstra seems to use .au. So why do, or did, 2 of Australia's largest companies prefer .com? Shorter? Consistent branding internationally? Who knows. None of us do as the research I asked for was never done.

If one of the main supposed benefits of direct registrations is the shorter domain, and better branding, then I'm going say .nz has been a failure.

I've just spent some time searching on google.co.nz for a heap of popular terms, and the number of .nz domains was zero. Not a single result. Most were co.nz and some .com.

Many of the search terms were big money terms, so if there was a perceived benefit, these would have been the brand owners with the motivation, the expertise and the funds to switch.

If NZ companies have had three years to weigh up their options and push ahead with switching, yet the overwhelming majority of page one results for common search terms haven't, surely that's a failure?

Not a failure in terms of the number of registrations, as you pointed out, but certainly a failure in terms of existing brands switching.

 

[snoopy]

I also have nothing to gain personally. And I was the only one calling for second level registrations through the last 3 Names Policy Panels.

You are affiliated with Ausregistry. Not too many critical pieces on Ausregistry in this lot is there?

http://www.domainpulse.com/?s=ausregistry

Some are just blatant sales pitches for them.

"Also, of the ~129k .nz domains, ~27k do not have a corresponding .co.nz or .org.nz etc
It was almost exactly three years ago that the second level in .nz was opened up and currently of the ~692k domains in .nz, ~129k are directly at the second level, so close to 19%.

That sounds like most of .nz is people doubling up for defensive purposes.

Do you view .uk as a success as well?

 

[Shane]

I've just spent some time searching on google.co.nz for a heap of popular terms, and the number of .nz domains was zero. Not a single result. Most were co.nz and some .com.

Just did a similar thing on google.co.uk. Roughly 50/50 split between co.uk and .com in the first page results. I did not see one single .uk website.

To think that Australia is going to be different, and that businesses here will embrace direct registrations, seems crazy to me.

 

[DomainNames]

Here we go again. Domain Investors thinking of themselves and not the broader internet using public. Second level registrations will benefit. It makes a .au domain name more readable. With much internet use and web browsing done on mobile devices, just adding that extra 4 characters of a URL can assist the internet user greatly. Most mobile devices cope with 30-40 characters. Most URLs are much longer.

Yes, there can be costs if the holder of the .com.au immediately changes to a .au domain. But most likely the change can be done over time, years even, and most costs can be done as materials are reprinted/republished. For the technical side of things, yes, this can cost but in the grand scheme of a business it's not going to be a huge expense.

For brand owners the second level registrations mean better branding. On the second Names Policy Panel I was on I asked for research to be done of large companies, including Telstra and ANZ, who then both long used .com domains for their marketing instead of .au, although today Telstra seems to use .au. So why do, or did, 2 of Australia's largest companies prefer .com? Shorter? Consistent branding internationally? Who knows. None of us do as the research I asked for was never done.

I also have nothing to gain personally. And I was the only one calling for second level registrations through the last 3 Names Policy Panels.

And it's nice to see that those here consistently ignore the individuals who can't register .au domain names. And no, don't bother with the .id.au idea. It's an unloved flop. Besides, if I've got a hobby or interest that becomes a business it's no use. So why are the rights of investors higher than those of individuals?

And it's nice to see the .nz experience is still being misrepresented. As Jay Daley posted on Domainer:
"It was almost exactly three years ago that the second level in .nz was opened up and currently of the ~692k domains in .nz, ~129k are directly at the second level, so close to 19%.

"Also, of the ~129k .nz domains, ~27k do not have a corresponding .co.nz or .org.nz etc
It was almost exactly three years ago that the second level in .nz was opened up and currently of the ~692k domains in .nz, ~129k are directly at the second level, so close to 19%.

"Also, of the ~129k .nz domains, ~27k do not have a corresponding .co.nz or .org.nz etc"

And then:
"And I should add that .co.nz are ~499k and so .nz is actually ~26% of .co.nz and that percentage continues to grow."

How is that a failure?

Please add your disclaimer you are paid by Ausregistry, where previously paid by auDA and you are doing all you can via various posts to help them get the additional competing .au extension brought in...

What is your argument against what the DNC wrote themselves?

There is just too much actual evidence against it and too much filthy syench with the way it has been pushed to this stage by parties with vested money interests..The same parties who push it sell many other competing names globally.. They do not have the .au namespace as their best interest or Australian business. Ausregistry was bought so Neustar Inc.. now Golden Gate Foreign owners could make more $$$. Fact.

https://www.dnc.org.nz/sites/default/files/2016-08/Domain Name Commission - Annual Report - .pdf
"Figure 3 shows the total number of domain names increased from 640,342 (at 1 April 2015) to 656,607 (at 31 March 2016) – a growth of 16,265, or 2.5 percent. The dip between February and March 2016 reflects the one-year anniversary of the end of the preferential registration and registration period - an important part of the registrations direct at the second level change. It appears that some registrants, having exercised their preferential registration rights, have subsequently let the shorter version of their name drop. "

 

[DomainNames]

typo above ... "filthy stench"

 

[DomainShield]

I just downloaded the .nz domain registration statics for the last 21 years and stacked them so we can see the overall growth of the namespace separated by extension.
It looks to me like there has been demand for .nz domains and there even seems to be a preference for .nz domains. I am not an expert on .nz domains so I am a little unsure why people are claiming this is a failure?

 

[DomainShield]

Hopefully the screenshots I took are visible to everyone because here is one of the .uk registration data stacked.
I downloaded the monthly registration statistics from nominet for the last three years and they seem to indicate that .co.uk is declining and .uk is growing in popularity. It also seem to indicate that they still have an overall growth in their namespace. Again this looks like a reasonably positive outcome to me but I am not an expert on .uk so can anyone explain why people think this one is a failure too? Oh and bear in mind that Excel decided the left axis does not need to start at zero so we are only looking at the top 10% of the chart... .uk registrations currently represent 6.34% of the total .co.uk domains registrations.

 

[Shane]

I am not an expert on .nz domains so I am a little unsure why people are claiming this is a failure?

Perhaps the difference is that you're using registration numbers to determine success or failure. I'm looking at the real outcomes for businesses.

I'm not seeing any businesses on page one of google.co.nz for popular search terms who are using the .nz option. I'm sure most of them have registered it for defensive purposes though...

If the main benefit of direct registrations is shorter, more appealing domains, yet businesses in NZ and the UK aren't switching despite having had years to do so, then that's a failure right?

Anyway I'm stepping down from this one. Each side, supply and demand, have different ideas of what success means in this case.

 

[snoopy]

NZ's growth rate slumped once they are announced the new tld was coming in, it fell from consistent 10% gains to 3-4% and has never recovered apart from a 15% growth rate the year of the launch (i.e. the land rush year).

You can see it in the flatter slope at the top of Domain Shield's chart, that is the land rush and then the aftermath (the purple part)

This was a fast growing extension before the change, 4 years of growth over 10% beforehand, not like .co.uk or .com.au which is largely stagnant.


As you can see from 2014 (the first big growth rate decline) things went badly once they decided to bring it in.

https://www.dntrade.com.au/threads/nz-growth-rates-at-record-lows-after-change.11347/

 

[DomainShield]

Perhaps the difference is that you're using registration numbers to determine success or failure. I'm looking at the real outcomes for businesses.

I'm not seeing any businesses on page one of google.co.nz for popular search terms who are using the .nz option. I'm sure most of them have registered it for defensive purposes though...

If the main benefit of direct registrations is shorter, more appealing domains, yet businesses in NZ and the UK aren't switching despite having had years to do so, then that's a failure right?

Anyway I'm stepping down from this one. Each side, supply and demand, have different ideas of what success means in this case.

I did not want to get dragged into the "if" discussion again but my curiosity has been piqued and I am seriously trying to understand if there is some sort of a disaster looming for .au if we did do this.
It seems to me that your test is unfair because you would need to give new companies and ideas time to gain a little traction first. Afterall .com and .co.uk had 21 years to establish their dominant positions.

 

[snoopy]

I downloaded the monthly registration statistics from nominet for the last three years and they seem to indicate that .co.uk is declining and .uk is growing in popularity. It also seem to indicate that they still have an overall growth in their namespace. Again this looks like a reasonably positive outcome to me but I am not an expert on .uk so can anyone explain why people think this one is a failure too? Oh and bear in mind that Excel decided the left axis does not need to start at zero so we are only looking at the top 10% of the chart... .uk registrations currently represent 6.34% of the total .co.uk domains registrations.

View attachment 576

Your chart shows 1% total growth in 3 years! You've chopped off most of the chart to make it look better.

You've have also selectively chosen your start date because the numbers were haven't growth at all if you add another year on.

UK had about 10.6 million registrations in 2013 (see the annual report) and it is still 10.6 million registrations today

https://www.nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/nominet_report_and_accounts_2013.pdf

New .co.uk registrations outnumber .uk by 10:1. It is a complete failure.

 

[snoopy]

People should look at the real numbers, not dodgy charts with the axis cut off,

https://www.nominet.uk/news/reports-statistics/uk-register-statistics-2017/


That's a failure, 10:1 in favour of the old extension.

 

[DomainShield]

People should look at the real numbers, not dodgy charts with the axis cut off,

https://www.nominet.uk/news/reports-statistics/uk-register-statistics-2017/
View attachment 579

That's a failure, 10:1 in favour of the old extension.

Nice of you to ignore the true measure of an extensions popularity "renewal rates" which are so low for .co.uk that even with a 10:1 ratio on the new registrations the overall count is falling and the minimal growth in the namespace is being driven by .uk... if i was feeling generous I might be inclined to believe that .uk is saving their extension rather than killing it.

 

[Andrew Wright]

Both charts look like prime examples of cannibalization to me.

 

[snoopy]

Nice of you to ignore the true measure of an extensions popularity "renewal rates" which are so low for .co.uk that even with a 10:1 ratio on the new registrations the overall count is falling and the minimal growth in the namespace is being driven by .uk... if i was feeling generous I might be inclined to believe that .uk is saving their extension rather than killing it.

The claims you are making simply aren't correct. .co.uk has been growing all year, it now outnumbers the new extension 10:1 for new registrations. That ratio has gotten larger, not smaller.



https://www.nominet.uk/news/reports-statistics/uk-register-statistics-2017/

 

[snoopy]

Both charts look like prime examples of cannibalization to me.

That is exactly what it is for both extensions.

 

[Horshack]

Yep .NZ has been a shocker. The registration period expired and it was a fizzer with most holders not bothering with the shorter extension, The conflicted process is still ongoing with parties needing to agree between themselves who gets the domain before October 17th. What's the chance of them ever agreeing so those domains will never be available which weakens the .nz space even further. With all the new extensions seemingly falling over you would expect that .uk will be a failure in 2019 also. Maybe they shouldn't have given registrants such a long time to stew on it. As always .com is king!

 

[Scott.L]

According to these Stats People are not stumbling over themselves to get a .nz; exactly what ratio of .co.nz registrants actually defensively registered a .NZ? 125,550?