AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Comment Close
Date		Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
 

gTLD Marketplace Health Index (Beta)

ADOPTED 10Y, 0N, 1AOlivier Crepin-Leblond     
Amy Bivins
amy.bivins@icann.org
AL-ALAC-ST-0916-01-01-EN

For information about this Public Comment, please click here 

 

Brief Overview

Purpose: ICANN seeks 1) Community input on the "gTLD Marketplace Health Index (Beta)" and, 2) Additional community volunteers for Advisory Panel that will work with staff to refine/expand metrics in gTLD Marketplace Health Index (Beta).

Current Status: "gTLD Marketplace Health Index (Beta)" published for public comment.

Next Steps: ICANN will work with community volunteers (advisory panel) to refine/expand metrics to track the evolution of the gTLD Marketplace.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

The gTLD Marketplace Health Index originated from the cross-organizational ICANN Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Dashboard. The "gTLD Marketplace Health Index" will furtherICANN's goal (number 2.3) of supporting the evolution of the gTLD marketplace to be robust, stable and trusted. The index analyzes the overall health and diversity of the globalgTLD marketplace.

ICANN seeks community input to expand and refine the "gTLD Marketplace Health Index (Beta) [PDF, 2.37 MB]."

Section II: Background

ICANN solicited community feedback in 2015 on a set of candidate concepts for gTLDmarketplace metrics focused on (a) robust competition, (b) marketplace stability, and (c) trust.

ICANN then worked with a group of community volunteers (the Advisory Panel) and an outside consultant to refine the list of potential concepts in response to public comments. The "gTLD Marketplace Health Index (Beta)" comprises these concepts and their current data points. ICANN hopes that this set of preliminary data will spark continued collaboration on the initiative and ground abstract discussions surrounding gTLD marketplace health into concrete, implementable concepts.

The initial set of metrics is listed below (organized by category). The current plan is to report on these in six-month increments, unless otherwise noted.

Robust Competition

  1. Percentage of distinct ICANN-accredited gTLD registrars, by ICANN region.
  2. Number of jurisdictions with at least one ICANN-accredited registrar.
  3. Percentage of distinct ICANN-accredited gTLD registry operators, by ICANNregion.
  4. Number of jurisdictions with at least one ICANN-accredited registry operator.
  5. Percentage of gTLD registrars that are distinct entities (counting one per family).
  6. Average number of gTLD registrar accreditations per registrar family.
  7. Percentage of gTLD registry operators that are distinct entities (counting one per family).
  8. Average number of gTLD registries held by each gTLD registry parent company.
  9. Total number of second-level domain names registered in gTLDs.
  10. Year-over-year growth rates in second-level domain names registered in gTLDs.
  11. Total number of second-level domain names registered in Internationalized gTLDs (IDNs).
  12. Total second-level domain name additions in all gTLDs.
  13. Year-over-year growth rates for second-level domain name additions.
  14. Second-level domain name additions, broken down into the following categories: legacy gTLDs, new gTLDs, IDNs, .brands, and geographic gTLDs, plus year-over-year growth rates for each of these categories.
  15. Second-level domain name deletions in gTLDs, plus year-over-year growth rates for second-level domain name deletions.
  16. Second-level domain name deletion percentages in gTLDs (the percentage of total second-level domain names deleted) broken down into the following categories: total gTLDs, legacy gTLDs, new gTLDs, IDN gTLDs, .brands, and geographic gTLDs.

Marketplace Stability

  1. Number of gTLD registrars newly accredited.
  2. Number of gTLD registrars disaccredited (divided out by voluntary and involuntary accreditations revoked).

Trust

  1. Number of involuntary gTLD registrar terminations (related to accreditations revoked involuntarily).
  2. WHOIS Accuracy rates detected by ICANN WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System.
  3. Number of UDRP and URS complaints decided against second-level gTLDregistrants (annual total plus percentage of cases filed).

The "gTLD Marketplace Health Index (Beta)" includes anonymous, high-level data aboutgTLD registry operators, registrars and registrants, which ICANN collects for business purposes. There are many other potential sources of data to consider as ICANN and the community collaborate in developing additional metrics that can be used to quantify the health of the marketplace. We hope that the "gTLD Marketplace Health Index (Beta)" [PDF, 2.37 MB] and our set of proposed discussion topics regarding additional metrics included in the report will serve as a basis for further discussion.

Following the close of the public comment period, ICANN will continue to work with the Advisory Panel, convened in early 2016, to refine and expand these metrics in response to community feedback. ICANN anticipates convening regular meetings with the Advisory Panel throughout the development process for the next iteration of gTLD Marketplace Health Index. If you are interested in becoming a panel member, visithttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtldmarketplace to subscribe to the Advisory Panel's email list.

Section III: Relevant Resources

Section IV: Additional Information

Section V: Reports

Staff Contact

Amy Bivins
amy.bivins@icann.org

 

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

AL-ALAC-ST-0916-01-01-EN.pdf


FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The ALAC welcomes the publication of this first set of gTLD Marketplace Health Index. This is a natural progression based on the work of ICANN Community into Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Confidence in new gTLDs. 

The ALAC proposes a number of additions/improvements; some of these are listed already in the section on pages 14 and 15.

 

Robust Competition

All in all, consumers (registrants) are the factors that move the market – the ones who pay – so we should find ways to get more insight on their needs and behaviours. This should be taken into account for future developments. 

 

Geographic Diversity 

Both metrics presented for registrars and registries appear to be focussing specifically at the offering (how many suppliers there are), rather than the market take-up. Focussing on the offering does not allow for detection of undue market domination.

 

Registrars

The current graphs show a simple metric of geographic diversity of registrars across regions and their development against time. The metric itself shows neither a conclusive growth nor a reduction in offering. It does show an ongoing imbalance worldwide – and this is helpful. 

However, this metric appears to lack differentiation among the registrars. Indeed, the Generic Top Level Domain offering varies greatly across Registrars. It is a trivial way to compile these statistics by treating a registrar that exists as a service to its own clients of other services in the same manner as a general registrar that derives most of its income from registering domains.

See under “Competition” for suggestions on more metrics.

 

Registries

The same comment can be made for registries. Again all registries are treated in the same way, whether they are catering to a community, a brand, a service, a generic name, a geographic location, etc. There needs to be more detail for this metric to be useful.

 

Competition

The metrics presented on page 4 of the report are very helpful. However, the ALAC believes that more can be done when it comes to tracking competition, especially when it comes to market influence and control.

True competition in a market is not solely a measure of the market offering but it also revolves around the share of market from the leading competitors. An example of such statistic, solely for new gTLDs is shown on https://ntldstats.com/registrar. 

Large competitors have more advertising power to reach a wider audience, hence this metric would be very important. When it comes to registrars, they also have a significant say in the success of a Top Level Domain.

Looking at the overall domain name market, a metric tracking share of market, such as the one shown on http://www.domainstate.com/registrar-stats.html is much more suitable to show whether competition among registrars is being stimulated. It appears that so far the vast majority of the market is dominated by one major player. When it comes to the domain registrations on a per country basis, the statistic shown on http://www.domainstate.com/top-country-registrars.html speaks for itself.

The ALAC recommends that the trends shown on the above examples should be tracked in addition to the metrics showing the number of registrars in each country and region.

When it comes to metrics about registries, whilst there is some worth in compiling the metrics presented, a better metric would be to track the market share of gTLDs, as on http://www.domainstate.com/registrar-tld-breakup.html.

For registries, it is worth noting that like-for-like gTLDs tend to compete against each other. For example, brand gTLDs do not broaden competition. A health related gTLD does not compete with a gambling related gTLD. So the true extent of competition is really amongst the more generic gTLDs, plus those that compete on a like-for-like basis in a specific trade.

The graphic displaying the growth of the overall domain name market on page 5 is helpful in showing whether the market is healthy, as growth indicates health. It might be interesting to compare this growth with the total growth in registration of second level domain names, including those in Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs). The growth in registrations under ccTLDs should be included on the same graph too.

But just counting the number of registrations in gTLDs is not enough. For instance, other metrics like “Information Density of a TLD” or “Domains with DNS” may offer a more complete view. One really needs to dig a level deeper that tracks the actual use of a TLD. How do registrants use the domains? Are they in parking, for sale, without DNS? Are they used by individuals, associations, companies, or government agencies?

The graphics showing the second level domain name additions and deletions in gTLDs on pages 6 to 9 are helpful. The ALAC proposes that a single graph should show additions and deletions using the same axis (in other words, merging Figure 11 and Figure 16). 

Stats about growth and deletions on pages 6, 7, 8 and 9 have to take into account pricing and market policies. Some registries offer domains for free or a very reduced fee. This significantly affects statistics and should be stated too.

 

Marketplace Stability

The metric presented are very useful. However, as seen in the "Competition" section, it is not just how many new players do we have (registries and registrars) but the market share of each one, for different TLDs or families of TLDs. And symmetrically, the count of the number of TLDs should include their market share too. In addition, statistics per country/region would be welcome in Figure 19. 

 

Trust

The metrics shown on pages 11 and 12 are useful.

 

Accuracy of WHOIS Records

Rather than as a pie chart, a line/bar graphic showing the ongoing accuracy on a quarter by quarter basis would be more helpful. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see WHOIS accuracy trends on a per top level domain basis.

A line/bar graph, rather than a pie chart, would be more helpful for the percentage of UDRP and URS Decisions against gTLD Registrants.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to note why registrars are, voluntarily or involuntarily, deaccredited. Was that due to high ICANN fees, noncompliance/legal issues, technical incompetence, lack of interest, etc?

The ALAC absolutely supports the further proposals of metrics on page 14 and 15 of the report.

 

SECOND DRAFT SUBMITTED

The ALAC welcomes the publication of this first set of gTLD marketplace Health Index. This is a natural progression based on the work of ICANN Community into Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Confidence in new gTLDs.

The ALAC proposes a number of additions/improvements, a number of which are listed already in the section on pages 14 and 15.

Robust Competition (Page 2 -3)

All in all, consumers (registrants) are the factors that move the market – the ones who pay - so we should find ways to get more insight on their needs and behaviours. This should be taken into account for future developments.

Geographic Diversity

Both metrics presented for Registrars and Registries appear to be focussing specifically at the offering, rather than the market take-up. Focussing on the offering does not allow for detection of undue market domination.

Registrars

The current graphs show a simple metric of geographic diversity of Registrars across regions and their development against time. The metric itself shows neither a conclusive growth nor a reduction in offering. It does show an ongoing imbalance worldwide – and this is helpful.

However, this metric appears to over-generalise the nature of a Registrar. Indeed, the Generic Top Level Domain offering varies greatly across Registrars. Treating a Registrar that exists as a service to its own clients of other services, with a general registrar that derives most of its income from registering domains is a trivial way to compile these statistics.

See under “Competition” for suggestions on more metrics.

Registries

The same comment can be made for Registries. Again all Registries are treated in the same way, whether they are catering for a community, a brand, a service, a generic name, a geographic location, etc. There needs to be more detail for this metric to be useful.

Competition (Page 4)

The metrics presented on page 4 of the report are very helpful. However, the ALAC believes that more can be done when it comes to tracking competition, especially when it comes to market influence and control.

True competition in a market is not solely a measure of the market offering (how many suppliers there are) but also revolves around the share of market from the leading competitors. An example of such statistic, solely for new gTLDs is shown on https://ntldstats.com/registrar

Large competitors have more advertising power to reach a wider audience, hence this metric would be very important. When it comes to Registrars, they also have a significant say in the success of a Top Level Domain.

Looking at the overall Domain Name market, a metric tracking share of market, such as the one shown on http://www.domainstate.com/registrar-stats.html is much more suitable to show whether competition is being stimulated. It appears that so far the vast majority of the market is controlled by one major player. When it comes to the offering on a per country basis, the statistic shown in http://www.domainstate.com/top-country-registrars.html speaks for itself.

The ALAC recommends that the trends shown on the above examples should be tracked in addition to the metrics showing the number of registrars in each country and region.

When it comes to metrics about Registries, whilst there is some worth in compiling the metrics presented, a better metric would be to track the market share of gTLDS, as in http://www.domainstate.com/registrar-tld-breakup.html

For Registries, It is worth noting that only like for like gTLDs compete against each other. For example, brand gTLDs do not broaden competition. A health related gTLD does not compete with a gambling related gTLD. So the true extent of competition is really amongst the more generic gTLDs, plus those that compete on a like for like basis in a specific trade.

The graphic showing the growth of the overall domain name market on page 5 is helpful in showing whether the market is healthy as growth shows health. It might be interesting to compare this growth with the total growth in registration of domain names including Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) and show the growth in registrations under ccTLDs on the same graph too. But just counting the number of registrations in gTLDs is not enough. Other metrics like for instance “Information density of a TLD” or “Domains with DNS” may offer a more complete view. One really needs to dig a level deeper that tracks the actual use of a TLD. How do registrants use the domains? Are they in parking, for sale, without DNS ? Are they used by individuals, associations, companies, government agencies ?

Second Level Domain name additions and deletions in gTLDs: The graphics shown on pages 6 to 9 are helpful. The ALAC proposes that a single graph should show additions and deletions using the same axis (Figure 11 and Figure 16).

Pages 6,7,8 and 9. Stats about growth and deletions have to take into account pricing and market policies. Some registries offer domains for free or a very reduced fee. This significantly affects statistics and should be stated too.

 

MarketPlace Stability

The metric presented are very useful. However, as seen in the "Competition" section, it is not just how many new players do we have (Registries and Registrars) but the market share of each one, for different TLDs or families of TLDs. And symmetrically, the count of the number of TLDs should include their market share too. In addition, statistics per country/region would be welcome in Figure 19.

 

Trust

The metrics shown on pages 11 and 12 are useful.

Accuracy of WHOIS Records

A line/bar graphic showing the ongoing accuracy on a quarter by quarter basis, rather than as a pie chart, would be more helpful. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see WHOIS accuracy trends on a per top level domain basis, thus showing which top level domains are more likely to be trusted.

A line/bar graphic showing the ongoing accuracy on a quarter by quarter basis, rather than as a pie chart, would be more helpful for the Number of UDRP and URS Decisions against gTLD Registrants.

Furthermore, It would be interesting to note why registrars are, voluntarily or involuntarily, deaccredited. Was that due to high ICANN fees, non compliance /legal, technical, etc), lack of interest, etc?

Further Metrics on page 14 and 15 of the report are absolutely supported.

 




 

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The ALAC welcomes the publication of this first set of gTLD marketplace Health Index. This is a natural progression based on the work of ICANN Community into Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Confidence in new gTLDs.

The ALAC proposes a number of additions/improvements, a number of which are listed already in the section on pages 14 and 15.

Robust Competition (Page 2 -3)

Geographic Diversity

Both metrics presented for Registrars and Registries appear to be focussing specifically at the offering, rather than the market take-up. Focussing on the offering does not allow for detection of undue market domination.

Registrars

The current graphs show a simple metric of geographic diversity of Registrars across regions and their development against time. The metric itself shows neither a conclusive growth nor a reduction in offering. It does show an ongoing imbalance worldwide – and this is helpful.

However, this metric appears to over-generalise the nature of a Registrar. Indeed, the Generic Top Level Domain offering varies greatly across Registrars. Treating a Registrar that exists as a service to its own clients of other services, with a general registrar that derives most of its income from registering domains is a trivial way to compile these statistics.

See under “Competition” for suggestions on more metrics.

Registries

The same comment can be made for Registries. Again all Registries are treated in the same way, whether they are catering for a community, a brand, a service, a generic name, a geographic location, etc. There needs to be more detail for this metric to be useful.

Competition (Page 4)

The metrics presented on page 4 of the report are very helpful. However, the ALAC believes that more can be done when it comes to tracking competition, especially when it comes to market influence and control.

True competition in a market is not solely a measure of the market offering (how many suppliers there are) but also revolves around the share of market from the leading competitors. An example of such statistic, solely for new gTLDs is shown on https://ntldstats.com/registrar

Large competitors have more advertising power to reach a wider audience, hence this metric would be very important. When it comes to Registrars, they also have a significant say in the success of a Top Level Domain.

Looking at the overall Domain Name market, a metric tracking share of market, such as the one shown on http://www.domainstate.com/registrar-stats.html is much more suitable to show whether competition is being stimulated. It appears that so far the vast majority of the market is controlled by one major player. When it comes to the offering on a per country basis, the statistic shown in http://www.domainstate.com/top-country-registrars.html speaks for itself.

The ALAC recommends that the trends shown on the above examples should be tracked in addition to the metrics showing the number of registrars in each country and region.

When it comes to metrics about Registries, whilst there is some worth in compiling the metrics presented, a better metric would be to track the market share of gTLDS, as in http://www.domainstate.com/registrar-tld-breakup.html

For Registries, It is worth noting that only like for like gTLDs compete against each other. For example, brand gTLDs do not broaden competition. A health related gTLD does not compete with a gambling related gTLD. So the true extent of competition is really amongst the more generic gTLDs, plus those that compete on a like for like basis in a specific trade.

The graphic showing the growth of the overall domain name market on page 5 is helpful in showing whether the market is healthy as growth shows health. It might be interesting to compare this growth with the total growth in registration of domain names including Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) and show the growth in registrations under ccTLDs on the same graph too.

Second Level Domain name additions and deletions in gTLDs: The graphics shown on pages 6 to 9 are helpful. The ALAC proposes that a single graph should show additions and deletions using the same axis (Figure 11 and Figure 16).

 

MarketPlace Stability

The metric presented are very useful and the ALAC has no further suggestions for more metrics in this category.

 

Trust

The metrics shown on pages 11 and 12 are useful.

Accuracy of WHOIS Records

A line/bar graphic showing the ongoing accuracy on a quarter by quarter basis, rather than as a pie chart, would be more helpful. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see WHOIS accuracy trends on a per top level domain basis, thus showing which top level domains are more likely to be trusted.

A line/bar graphic showing the ongoing accuracy on a quarter by quarter basis, rather than as a pie chart, would be more helpful for the Number of UDRP and URS Decisions against gTLD Registrants.

 

Further Metrics on page 14 and 15 of the report are absolutely supported.

Conclusion

A good start to the statistical gathering and analysis, that is welcome by our Community, but more needs to be done.



  • No labels

5 Comments

  1. Alberto Soto

     I want to be part of the working group. Thanks!

  2. Olivier Crepin-Leblond

    Comments from Jordi Iparraguirre:

     

    Comments on the gTLD Marketplace Health Index (beta) july 2016 proposal

    Jordi Iparraguirre

    EURALO

    2016-August-29th

    Comments

    1- Page 1 and 2. The proposed areas of study are focused on the offer and the perception of the

    offer, not the consumer side. That is, it seems to focus on registries and registrars (which is good)

    but not looking onto what registrants do with the domains.

    This is not an issue per se and may have been defined as such from start. Nevertheless, I feel that

    consumers (registrants) are the ones that move the market – the ones who pay- so we should find

    ways to get much insight on their needs and behaviors. This may or may not be added into this

    version of the index, but I think it should be taken into account for future developments.

    2- Page 1 and 5. Metric: “demonstrated by growth in new gTLDs and across all gTLDs”

    We all know some of the new gTLDs have no or very little scope. This is good to offer options for

    the long tail, but trying to measure health and success just looking for the number of registered

    domains is incomplete. Other metrics like for instance “Information density of a TLD” or “Domains

    with DNS” may offer a more complete view.

    3- Page 10. The marketplace is open to new players.

    It is not just how many new players do we have (registries and registrars) but the market share of

    each one for different TLDs or families of TLDs. And symmetrically, how many different and

    market share has each TLD.

    Also page 10 figure 19 should also show data “per region” and/or country.

    4- Page 5. Indexes focus on growth. It could be interesting to add also data on how registrants use

    the domains. Are they in parking, for sale, without DNS ? Are they used by individuals,

    associations, companies, government agencies ?

    5- Pages 6,7,8 and 9. Stats about growth and deletions have to take into account pricing and market

    policies. Some registries offer domains for free or a very reduced fee. This significantly affects

    statistics and should be stated too.

    6- Page 11. It could be interesting to note why registrars are, voluntarily or involuntarily,

    deaccredited. Was that due to high ICANN fees, non compliance /legal, technical, etc), lack of

    interest, etc?

    ICANN already has some of this data, so it would be easy to add to the Index.

    -end

     

  3. Ariel Liang

    Comments and suggested edits. 

  4. Olivier Crepin-Leblond

    From Christopher Wilkinson:

    I regret that I was not aware that this activity had been going on during the past year.
Actually, I do not understand the rationale for conducting a 'market health' activity in parallel with the CCCT review. They both address the same underlying issues.

Regarding the proposed metrics, I am rather perplexed. Interesting as they may be, they do not address any of the fundamental measurements of 'market health'.
Rather, we need to be looking at some basic - indeed classic - measurements of market performance (most of which are already reported to national statistical authorities), such as:

1.	Financial turnover in recent years (e.g. last 5 years) of Registries and Registrars, normalised to a common exchange rate. Distinguish existing and new Registries and Registrars.

2.	Market share data; degree of concentration or competition, rate of penetration of the 'new' gTLDs since they were launched. How have new gTLD registrations been financed?

3.	Investment data: how much has been invested in the creation of new gTLDs; how much is invested by existing gTLDs. How was the investment financed?

4.	Employment data:	How many people work in this new industry? Distributed by Registries and Registrars. Distinguish existing large, medium sized entities and new gTLD entrants.
	Distributed by geographic area.

5.	Trade Data:	We are looking at a branch of international trade in IT services. What proportion of existing and new turnover of Registries and Registrars derives from domestic (national) business and from international business (e.g. Registry business with Registrars in third countries and registrations by registrants in third countries.)

[In all of the above a degree of aggregation would normally be necessary to ensure corporate anonymity, which is part of the usual stock-in-trade of the statistical organisations.]

Just a few thoughts

CW

  5. Ariel Liang

    Hello Olivier Crepin-Leblond - please see my proposed edits and suggestions on the latest draft that you posted today. Download the document below.