Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

.CLUB sees spam double after China promotion

Kevin Murphy, September 11, 2018, Domain Registries

.CLUB Domains has seen the amount of spam in .club double a month after seeing a huge registration spike prompted by a deep discount deal.

The registry saw its domains under management go up by about 200,000 names over a few days in early August, largely as a result of a promotion at Chinese registrar AliBaba.

AliBaba sold .club domains for CNY 3 ($0.44) during the promotion, helping it overtake GoDaddy as the top .club registrar.

At that time, spam tracker SpamHaus was reporting that 17.9% of the .club domains it was seeing in the wild were being used in spam.

SpamHaus statToday, that number is 35.4%, almost double the August 7 level. SpamHaus does not publish the actual number of spammy domains for .club; that honor is only bestowed upon the top 10 “bad” TLDs.

Correlation does not equal causation, of course. There could be factors other than the AliBaba promotion that contributed to the increase, but I believe there’s probably a link here.

.CLUB chief marketing officer Jeff Sass told DI:

When registrars have domains “on sale”, there is always the chance that low-cost domains will be attractive to abusers. We monitor abuse proactively, and respond promptly to complaints, as well as monitor our registrar partners collectively and individually.

It’s almost certainly unfair of me to single out fluctuations in .club here, rather than take a comparative look at multiple TLDs. There are certainly many worse TLDs per SpamHaus’ statistics — .men leads among the gTLDs, with 87.2% spam.

But, given the industry truism that cheaper domains leads to more abuse, I think such a large increase correlating with such a successful promotion is a useful data point.

Afilias finally admits it’s American

Kevin Murphy, August 31, 2018, Domain Registries

Afilias has changed its corporate structure and is now officially based in the United States.

A new holding company, Afilias Inc, has been created in Delaware. It now owns Afilias Plc, the Ireland-based company that has been until now the parent of the Afilias family.

Being “based” in Ireland and doing business primarily in the US was always partly a tax thing, and the company admitted in a press release yesterday that “recent favorable US tax changes” are one of the reasons it’s relocating to the States.

Trump’s tax changes last year reportedly saw corporation tax reduced from 35% to 21%, a steep cut but still a heck of a lot higher than Ireland’s aggressively business-friendly regime.

Other reasons for shift, CEO Hal Lubsen said in a press release, are: “More of the company’s shares are now owned by Americans, and our executive group is increasingly becoming American.”

The company also noted that its biggest partners — Public Interest Registry and GoDaddy — are American.

Afilias’s global HQ is now its office in Horsham, Pennsylvania. It also has offices in Canada, Australia, India and China.

The company told registrars that it does not expect the restructuring to have any impact on its operations.

.CLUB revenue not all that

Kevin Murphy, August 21, 2018, Domain Registries

.CLUB Domains may be one of the 5000 fastest-growing companies in the US, according to Inc magazine, but it’s returning the majority of its revenue back to its registrars.

CEO Colin Campbell revealed this week that the company returns almost 70% of its gross revenue in the form of rebates.

The revelation came in an interview with Domain Name Wire on its latest podcast.

Campbell told Andrew Allemann that in 2017 .CLUB had $9.3 million in what he called “cash flow” or “gross revenue”.

But “net cash” or “net revenue”, after rebates was just $2.8 million, meaning $6.5 million was returned to registrars via promotions.

The interview came a few days after Inc named the company 1164th in its 2018 list of fastest-growing US companies.

Inc had .CLUB’s revenue at $7.2 million, but that appears to have been calculated using the usual accounting standards of deferring revenue into future periods over the lifetime of the domain subscription.

.club has something like 1.4 million names under management.

Campbell said that the company is “adding about a million dollars of net revenue per year” and he predicted 2018 gross cash to come in at $10.5 million and net to come in at $3.7 million.

That’s a net revenue figure, remember, not a profit or net income line. Campbell said he’s more interested in growing the business rather than paying taxes on profits.

The aggressive rebating seems to have a focus in China, where it has regular deals with the likes of Alibaba (which was .club’s biggest registrar with 20% of the market at the last count) and West.cn.

While .CLUB is private, Campbell has been frank about its performance in the past.

The DNW interview follows DI’s interview with Campbell on more or less the same topic last September, and DNW’s in 2016.

It’s a good podcast, you should have a listen.

Baidu gets Chinese approval for .baidu

It seems China’s Draconian licensing program for TLD registries is not limited to foreigners.

Chinese internet giant Baidu on Friday became the latest new gTLD registry operator to get the nod to run a TLD by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

The approval was for .baidu, which is currently pre-launch with no launch plan on record.

Despite the brand match, it’s not technically a dot-brand gTLD — its ICANN contract has no Specification 13, which contains various carve-outs for single-registrant spaces.

While not particularly well-known in the English-speaking world, Baidu is second only to Google in terms of search engine market share, due to its dominance in China.

The company had 2017 revenue of almost CNY 85 billion ($12.5 billion).

ICANN rejected Israel as meeting venue due to threat from Gaza and Iran

Kevin Murphy, July 24, 2018, Domain Policy

Israel was rejected as a possible venue for one of ICANN’s 2020 public meetings due to concerns about Middle East violence, DI has learned.

A proposal to host a meeting in Tel Aviv was discounted, with ICANN staff telling the board of directors that it is “not suitable for an ICANN meeting due to security concerns.”

“With the proximity to the Gaza strip and the escalation of an Iran/Israel conflict we feel it is best to avoid this region,” the board was told at its meeting last month.

Cost was also cited as a reason to avoid the city, though there was no mention of visa problems (which I imagine would be a concern for many community members).

Tel Aviv, which was proposed by a local registrar, was among five possible venues for ICANN’s mid-2020 Policy Forum that were rejected in favor of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The others, which all came from the Asia-Pacific region per ICANN’s regional rotation policy, were Macau (China), Auckland (New Zealand), Sydney (Australia) and Adelaide (Australia).

It also appears that locations proposed by community members seem to get preference over those proposed by venues, such as convention centers, themselves.

The alternative proposals have come to light because ICANN neglected to redact confidential information from a set of board briefing documents (pdf) published last week. The unredacted information reads:

Other Hosting Proposals Received:

  • Macao, China: Yannis Li (DotAsia), Bonnie Chun (HKIRC) and Paco Xiao (MONIC) submitted a proposal. However, we found this location to be more expensive than Kuala Lumpur.
  • Auckland, New Zealand: Jordan Carter from InternetNZ submitted a proposal. However, we found this location to be more expensive than Kuala Lumpur.
  • Tel-Aviv, Israel: Yoav Keren from Domain The Net Technologies Ltd. submitted a proposal. However, we found this location to be more expensive than Kuala Lumpur and not suitable for an ICANN meeting due to security concerns. With the proximity to the Gaza strip and the escalation of an Iran/Israel conflict we feel it is best to avoid this region.
  • Sydney, Australia: Joanne Muscat from Business Events Sydney submitted a hosting proposal. However, this location was proposed by the meeting venue not a community member and is more expensive than Kuala Lumpur.
  • Adelaide, Australia: Jacqui Lloyd from Adelaide Convention Bureau submitted a proposal. However, this location was proposed by the meeting venue not a community member and is more expensive than Kuala Lumpur.

The same document also reveals that proposals to host ICANN’s 2020 Latin America meeting — which was ultimately awarded to Cancun, Mexico — were received from Lima, Peru and Monterrey, Mexico.

Monterrey was also rejected due to unspecified “security and accessibility concerns”.

The US State Department currently classifies Monterrey with a “Level 3 — Reconsider Travel” status, whereas Cancun has a lower “Level 2 — Exercise Increased Caution” status.

The unredacted text reads:

  • Lima, Peru: Johnny Laureano from the Asociación de Usuarios de Internet del Perú submitted a hosting proposal. The proposed convention center is still in the process of selecting a management company. The host has not followed through with a valid proposal.
  • Monterrey, Mexico: Monica Trevino from Cintermex Convention Center submitted a hosting proposal. The location was not suitable for an ICANN meeting due to security and accessibility concerns.

Paris, Budapest, The Hague, and Geneva — some of which had been scouted by ICANN as opposed to being proposed by third parties — were rejected as venues for the 2020 European meeting.

The unredacted document reads:

  • Paris, France: Laure Filloux from VIPARIS Palais des Congrès de Paris submitted a hosting proposal. However, this location was proposed by the meeting venue not a community member and is more expensive than Hamburg.
  • Budapest, Hungary: Balazs Szucs from HungExpo Budapest submitted a hosting proposal. This location was proposed by the meeting venue and was not suitable for an ICANN meeting.
  • The Hague, Netherlands: Identified by the ICANN meetings team as a possible location was also considered. The location was more expensive than Hamburg.
  • Geneva, Switzerland: Identified by the ICANN meetings team as a possible location was also considered. The location was more expensive than Hamburg.

The European meeting will instead take place in Hamburg at the invitation of local trade group eco and the city council.

The cost of each successful proposal, which seems to be the clincher in each case, is redacted in these documents.