You are here :
-
Public Consultations
-
Reference
-
Statistics
-
Publications
-
Blog
- Brexit and .fr
- Analysis of the .RE
- Brands answer the call to the 2nd ‘Cercle des .marque’ event
- About the attack on French ISPs’ DNS resolvers
- Using Afnic open data : example with the term COVID
- Hosting a domain name with compound characters
- Eligibility of a holder located in the United Kingdom post Brexit
- Can compound characters be used in a domain name?
- Functioning of Afnic during lockdown
- Which Top Level Domains have an IP address?
- Lala Andriamampianina, may you rest in peace
- Resolutions for 2020: Afnic goes elliptic
- 6 tips to prevent your website from being hacked
- In search of low-cost nTLDs
- Exploring the city through the .paris community
- .org - an alternative perspective
- Looking back on the success of the first meeting of the Cercle des .marque
- Key success factors for Internet extensions: an evaluation grid
- [Video] Conclusions on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) France 2019
- A brief example of using Afnic Open Data
- Food for thought on the "new TLD" business models
- 30 years of success and danger: the Web, URLs and the future
- [Success stories] Strengthen your infrastructure to suit your ambitions
- February 1, 2019: is the DNS going to shake?
- [Success stories] They chose to have their own TLD
- [Success stories] .museum, how a historic Internet suffix was revived
- The main steps in effectively launching your .brand
- 6 secrets on how to improve the renewal of domain names
- [Video] Back to IGF 2018 in Paris
- A .BRAND to enhance customer experience
- Afnic commits to DNS security at the international level
- Replacement of the KSK of the root zone: Are you ready?
- How the SNCF implemented its new digital strategy with oui.sncf
- Franco-Dutch research project on automatic classification of domain name abuse
- The auditive memorization of domain names
- What are the possible actions against domain name abuses?
- Identity theft by domain name: what Afnic does
- Cybersquatting, Spam, Phishing… the different types of domain name abuses
- [Video] Review of the French Internet Governance Forum 2018
- Custom Internet extensions: the opportunities for brands
- How to avoid inadmissibility in the SYRELI procedure
- Which English terms are most used in .FR domain names?
- Domain name security, the example of cryptocurrencies
- What are the terms most used in .fr domain names?
- Personality test: Are you ready for GDPR?
- Do GeoTLDs like .alsace have an effect on local SEO?
- The 11 vital locations to display your domain name!
- What means of action for a Right-holder ineligible under the Naming Policy?
- Domain name litigation: the recognition of an AOC rights in the SYRELI procedure
- Why choose a domain name under a geoTLD?
- Afnic, a community first and foremost!
- The defense of personality rights in the SYRELI procedure
- When will the next round of the new gTLDs take place?
- A million good reasons for coming to the Afnic Forum...
- Yeti DNS-over-TLS public resolver
- 2016, the beginning of a new cycle for Afnic
- .fr has just passed the 3 million domain names milestone
- My experience inside the Afnic Legal Department
- Future of ICANN Privatization? Internationalization? Supervision?
- Excellence at Afnic - Our coming-out
- Speech at the transmittal of the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan
- Exclusive offer: 100% money back on your domain name*!
- 8 tips for choosing the right domain name
- IPv6 and DNSSEC are respectively 20 and 19 years old. Same fight and challenges?
- L.45-2 paragraph 1 of the CPCE: When a domain name disrupts the French law
- How to avoid getting your domain name stolen by email?
- Accountability and IANA transition: behind the scenes
- Stop selling domain names!
- abc.xyz : erratum.xyz
- A comprehensive approach to French regional branding
- abc.xyz : Meanwhile, back in France…
- abc.xyz: Why not alphabet.com? (The conspiracy theory version)
- abc.xyz : The controversial success of .xyz
- Corporate Communications, Constant Crisis
- abc.xyz : Why not alphabet.com ?
- alphabet.xyz : How Alphabet got its domain name
- abc.xyz : Don't worry, we're still getting used to the name too!
- IANA transition crosses a major milestone in Buenos Aires
- A day in the life of the Icann empowered community
- IANA transition : the machine is moving, but the deadline is approaching
- Corporate Social Responsibility and the DNA of ccTLDs
- China Changing in Leaps and Bounds
- Towards a less intrusive DNS
- ICANN: what does accountability stand for?
- ICANN Singapore. A debate at the other end of the world
- ICANN Reform, or opening Pandora's box
- Internet Governance Forum: What is to be done?
- Slam spam!
- Icann : freeze !
- Scams and identity theft, the experience of a SYRELI reporter
- French Regional Reform Does Not Mean the End of GeoTLDs
- Lessons Learnt from NETmundial
- Suggestions for a successful IANA transition
- Wind of change at Afnic!
- Back to the future of the Afnic Legal Service
- The US Backs ICANN for Internet Governance
- Should the registrars streamline their gTLD strategy?
- The IANA elephant in the room
- 2014 : change of course for the naming system
- Why do regions want a place online?
- What can Afnic do?
- Internet governance: let’s get to work!
-
FAQ
-
Glossary
-
Certificates
In search of low-cost nTLDs
06 January 2020 - By Loïc Damilaville
The present study came about based on a dual observation.
On the one hand, the proven existence of low-cost (or even almost free) strategies where geographic extensions (ccTLDs) such as .TK (Tokelau), .ML (Mali) etc. are concerned, and on the other hand, the observation of very similar strategies in new extensions such as .XYZ, famous for having shot up from 0 to 6 million domain names registered in just two years, before settling at just over 2 million today. The ‘cost’ in the latter case was just 1 cent - similar to the almost free-of-charge approach observed with certain ccTLDs.
This type of strategy is fairly familiar, with high volumes of creations resulting from the low price combined after one year with high volumes of deletions, either because renewal rates are much higher than creation rates or because holders who have registered large numbers of ‘almost-free’ names have not achieved their goals (sales or monetisation of traffic) and let them lapse when they’ve expired.
We thought it would be interesting to use the extensive ‘laboratory’ that nTLDs represent to attempt to numerically identify the typology of these low-cost extensions, which are primarily found among ‘generic’ nTLDs as opposed to community, geographic and brand extensions.
In order to do this, we selected a number of generic nTLDs that had been on the market for at least three years (2016 and earlier) so as to avoid the ‘side effects’ associated with the opening phases, which usually see high creation rates(1) combined with relatively low maintenance rates(2), as much as possible. This approach excludes, for example, the .ICU extension, which saw very large numbers of creations in 2019, though it is unclear what proportion of these names will be retained in 2020. It also excludes .BRAND domain names that follow specific dynamics.
The usual life cycle of an extension would see its creation rate decrease as stock increased and the maintenance rate increase in relation to how long ago the name had been registered. These values will stabilise after a certain time, provided that no isolated incidents (promotional campaigns, domaining waves, etc.) occur to disrupt them.
But what relevant thresholds are used to describe the situation of a given extension? A quantitative analysis performed on all Legacy and nTLDs that met our criteria (launched prior to 31/12/16) enabled us to determine the following thresholds, which we consider to be the most relevant.
a) Maintenance rate
Breakdown of generic TLDs (Legacy and nTLDs) by maintenance rate
16 Legacy TLDs were taken into account (with the exception of .POST and .MUSEUM domain names, which were recently ‘relaunched’ by AFNIC), 7 community nTLDs, 48 geographic nTLDs (.ALSACE, etc.) and 424 generic nTLDs.
The thresholds were consistent with what we had already observed with ccTLDs (country code Top Level Domains). The maintenance rate for the .FR extension - a long-established extension in its market -, for example, is between 81% and 83%, varying from time to time.
Above the 86% threshold we find TLDs with a high proportion of used and/or defensive names that are renewed on a regular basis and registries whose policies are not to delete anything.
The extensions within the 76% to 85% bracket are well established within their respective fields of activity, with high usage and holder ‘loyalty’ rates.
Between the 66% and 75% thresholds, TLDs tend to struggle to stabilise their holder base, but this stage often simply represents the transition to the upper category, which explains the low proportion of TLDs in this case.
The same is true of TLDs in the 51% to 65% bracket, though the situation is a little more severe in this case, generally resulting from dynamic marketing strategies focusing on new creations to the detriment of building loyalty (the .PL (Poland) ccTLD is an example of such a scenario).
Finally, beneath the 50% renewal threshold, there are a small proportion of TLDs that may either be experiencing major setbacks by simply losing customers or have implemented very aggressive marketing strategies that have ultimately resulted in significant deletions. Our low-cost offering should, in theory, fall into the latter category.
That said, a TLD’s position within a particular category could be considered favourable, perfectly normal or a matter of concern depending on its age. As such, the 13% of Legacy TLDs with maintenance rates of less than 66% are in a potentially more serious situation than the 36% of generic nTLDs that fall into the same category, which are still new and held by holders that are more volatile than those of older TLDs.
b) Creation rate
Breakdown of generic TLDs (Legacy and nTLDs) by creation rate
The most dynamic extensions in this table have a high creation rate, whilst those extensions attracting the fewest new creations have a low creation rate.
The ‘normal’ value (cruising speed) could be considered to fall into the 16% to 25% bracket, with the 15% and under category concerning extensions that are at risk of suffocation due to a lack of sufficient demand.
Creation rates of over 51%, however, mean that more than 1 name in 2 has been registered over the course of the past 12 months in a given portfolio and on a given date. This rate is typical of a classic scenario in the two years following a market launch and is highly indicative of aggressive promotional strategies if sustained for over 3 years.
The other two categories (26% to 35% and 36% to 50%) include extensions that have implemented successful marketing campaigns and/or are still new enough to have a significant proportion of newly created names in their portfolio.
c) But what about low-cost nTLDs?
The hypothesis on which our research was based was that these low-cost extensions would be among those with a very high creation rate (51% and over) combined with a very low maintenance rate (50% and under).
Where these two criteria intersect we find 25 generic nTLDs, i.e. 6% of the 424 included in the study. Yet these 6% of nTLDs account for 61% of the domain names registered under generic nTLDs in terms of volume (14.5 million in June 2019, i.e. almost 50% of all nTLDs).
This implies that around 30% (61% x 50%) of the names registered as nTLDs are expected to disappear over the course of the coming year, not to mention deletions in other categories. This simple calculation highlights one of the reasons behind the persistent volatility of nTLDs, which can vary by several million in either direction in the space of just a few months. The reality is that these significant variations are determined by just a handful of extensions, which our study has allowed us to isolate.
Our approach has been validated by the list of 25 nTLDs identified (based on ICANN data from June 2019), including the .XYZ, .TOP, .SITE and .CLUB extensions, which are among the Top 10 nTLDs and are known for adopting low-cost approaches (without necessarily going as far as being almost free of charge).
- .BUSINESS
- .CLUB
- .GDN
- .HOST
- .INK
- .KIM
- .LIFE
- .LTD
- .ONLINE
- .PRESS
- .REALTY
- .RED
- .SERVICES
- .SHOP
- .SITE
- .SPACE
- .STORE
- .TECH
- .TOP
- .WEBCAM
- .WEBSITE
- .WEDDING
- .WORK
- xn--6qq986b3xl .我爱你
- .XYZ
This ranking is clearly not static as it evolves according to the strategies adopted by the players concerned and the natural constraints imposed by both the market and the life cycle of domain names. This being the case, a growing extension will see its stock increase and will naturally find it increasingly difficult to maintain a constant rate of creation. Likewise, an increasing maintenance rate for an extension that is achieving zero growth or even in decline can only reflect the fact that there are very few new creations and that the stock is based increasingly on names that have been used and/or defensively registered in the past. It's all about balance and the context in which the TLD is operated.
We searched for .WANG - one of the low-cost extensions used in 2017-2018 - for example, and found that it currently (as of June 2019) has a creation rate of 19% and a maintenance rate of 31%. This is an interesting case of withdrawing from a low-cost strategy whereby creations become less common and renewals continue to suffer from the volatility of registrations made whilst the low-cost strategy was still in force, leading to a significant purge in stock (-62% between June 2018 and June 2019). These data are expected to change over the coming years, with the rate of creation worth being maintained by the registry whilst the maintenance rate will gradually improve.
The main issue for new registries often relates to the volume of names managed, which, where third parties (and indeed investors!) are concerned, is indicative of an extension’s success. After a few years, however, these same registries realise that the true key to success is the profitability of their activity. The change in strategy can prove to be a sensitive matter, in terms of both accounts and relations with registrars. To paraphrase an ironic critique of the effects of the austerity policies advocated by the IMF, it is better for a TLD to have fewer but profitable names than to potentially ‘die a millionaire’.
(1) Creation rate: total number of creations over the last 12 months/stock
(2) Maintenance rate: (stock - creations over the last 12 months)/stock 12 months earlier
Is this domain
available ?
News
- March 16, 2021 Afnic joins the Renaissance Numérique Think Tank
- March 12, 2021 Afnic and the Swedish Internet Foundation extend their collaborative Zonemaster ...
- March 11, 2021 .FR in 2020: acceleration of the digital transformation among businesses and ret...
- March 1, 2021 Report Internet of Things & Digital Sovereignty
- February 12, 2021 Afnic sponsors the TV program Connecte Ta Boîte