publish this.
try proceedings of acm?
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Craig Simon wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here's a link that may be of interest to participants in the domain name
> debates.
>
> http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/trends.html
>
> The bottom line is that, since I began collecting this data in April
> last year, registrations within the InterNIC's "Big 3" gTLDs have
> increased 261 percent while registrations in ISO ccTLDs have increased
> 188 percent. There are some anomalies in the source data which undermine
> faith in the precision of these numbers and the utility of using them to
> perform analysis on a month-to-month basis, but I accept them as
> reasonably credible with regard to long-term trends.
>
> Consequently, it is safe to argue that NSI has significantly improved
> its already formidable market position against competing registries.
>
> The highlight of the page is a chart and a table with supporting data.
> Text from the page follows.
>
> (Sorry if the graph is hard to view for people running less than
> 1024x768. There aren't enough hours in this day to figure out the
> resolution arcana of Excel's html converter.)
> ...
>
> Since April 1998 data was collected from www.domainstats.com, a site
> maintained by Netnames, International. To this extent this information
> is reliable, it shows that the growth in registrations in under .com,
> .net, and .org now solidly outpaces growth in registrations within the
> ISO ccTLDs. An earlier series of data from 1997 reported by Mark
> Henderson-Thynne of NetNames showed that ccTLD registrations slightly
> outpaced growth in the InterNIC's commodity TLDs that year.
>
> This substantial change in growth trends demonstrates that NSI is
> consolidating a robust advantage in the domain name market.
>
> Please note:
>
> There are some glaring unexplained anomalies in Netnames' reports which
> may invalidate this data for fine, short-term analysis.
>
> None of my comments regarding anomalies in the source data should be
> taken as criticism of NetNames. The numbers were made available to the
> public through the DomainStats site, and I think they reflect a fair
> effort to consolidate a complex data set from a diverse array of
> sources. One can always hope for more accuracy (and independently
> verifiable substantiation of that accuracy), but I am grateful to have
> this.
>
> The drop in InterNIC registrations illustrated at the end of 1998 is
> unlikely to have occurred as shown, and is probably due to a change in
> Netnames' collection and reporting procedures.
>
> Results reported for the InterNIC TLDs at the DomainStats site was
> clearly incorrect in April 1999. To smooth over that error I
> interpolated that month's series for InterNIC registrations by summing
> the prior and following month's totals and inserting the rounded
> average. Also, close inspection of the data for certain countries,
> particularly Brazil (.br) and South Africa (.az), raises questions about
> the up-to-date accuracy of NetNames' reporting, as do occasionally
> static reports for other ccTLDs like Germany (.de) and Denmark (.dk).
>
> Please also note that both the ccTLD and InterNIC data for February 1999
> is interpolated because I didn't capture the source report from NetNames
> for that month. And not all data was captured consistently on the first
> of the month, either because the DomainStats site was not available, or
> because of my forgetfulness.
>
> Errors and inconsistencies in checksums general reflect small
> inconsistencies in sums published at the DomainStats site.
>
> With the exception of the first dates along the X axis data were
> collected on or about the first of the month for successive months.
> Those first two dates were considerably farther apart, and therefore the
> trend lines for those dates should not be as steep as is shown.
>
>
> Despite these caveats, the information is useful and interesting.
>
> 1) Even if Netnames has substantially underreported ccTLD registrations,
> it is abundantly clear that the growth of InterNIC registrations
> outpaces ccTLD registrations. I estimate the shortfall is approximately
> 500,000 ccTLD registrations. This is currently less than a month's worth
> of business for NSI, but far exceeds the size of the largest ccTLD.
>
> 2) Many observers expected that pent-up demand for new gTLDs would go to
> highly advertised leased ccTLDs like Niue (.nu). That zone did grow by
> 640 percent over the study period, but accounts for a small number of
> registrations–just over 40,000–and less than 1 percent of ccTLD
> registrations. Its impact on non-InterNIC growth is insignificant.
>
>
> ....
>
> That's it. I hope the chart is readable. Constructive criticism is of
> course welcome.
>
> Craig Simon
> More at http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html
>
>
--
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot here. <--
