Category: domain names

Domain names

Posted on

Survey of Usage of the .US TLD

Survey of Usage of the .US TLD. (August – September 2002)

Recent policy changes allow registrations in .US with few restrictions. The author collects data about all known .US registrations, analyzing their registration patterns and usage. Certain registrants are found to register more than 2,000 domains each; these registrants may be gathering domains for commercial applications requiring many domains or for future sale, and large registrants (with ten or more .US domains) jointly hold a total of 46.4% of .US registrations to date. Non-Americans are found to register 7.0% of domains, and some of these registrations may violate .US registration restrictions that require nexus in the United States. The overwhelming majority of .US registrations as yet provide no original web content; working .US web sites are found to be clustered with certain registrars, while certain other registrars tend to register domains that offer no web content and domains offered for resale.

 

Posted on

Registrations in Open ccTLDs

Registrations in Open ccTLDs. (June – July 2002)

The author analyzes domain registrations and usage in the “open ccTLDs” of .CC, .TV, and .WS in order to quantify the domains’ size, usage, and registration patterns. Analysis first reports the number of open ccTLD web pages indexed by Google, finding open ccTLDs to be less than one one-hundredth as large as .COM when measured in this way. The author next considers registration of commonly-used dictionary nouns; while many such domains have been registered in the tested ccTLDs, more than 80% lead only to placeholders or to no web content at all. Finally, the author investigates open ccTLD registrations that use the same second-level strings as the primary .COM domains of major corporations worldwide (including the Fortune 1000 and Forbes International 500). Again, many such domains have been registered, and more than two thirds of such registrations are by registrants other than the registrant of the corresponding .COM. The web content available on sampled domains provides evidence both of substantial defensive registrations and of substantial cybersquatting.

Posted on

DNS as a Search Engine: A Quantitative Evaluation

DNS as a Search Engine: A Quantitative Evaluation. (June – July 2002)

In the course of the Internet’s growing popularity, many Internet users have come to use the domain name system (DNS) as a directory and search engine: When trying to reach the web site of a new or unknown company, users often request the web page at the address http://www.companyname.com, replacing “companyname” with a guess as to a site’s likely domain name. However, this DNS-based method is imperfect in that users may fail to correctly guess or remember a given company’s domain name, instead typically receiving errors or sites operated by other entities.

The research described in this article suggests that alternative search mechanisms, such as leading search engine Google, provide the content of interest with greater accuracy and reliability than does the DNS. This finding supports the claim offered by, among others, DNS software designer Paul Vixie, that DNS “is not a directory service and was never intended to be used as one.” This finding also quantifies Dan Gillmor‘s “Google effect” whereby Google replaces DNS as the preferred mechanism of locating content online.

Research further suggests that, while DNS offers what some might consider relatively high accuracy when conducting searches for top brands, companies, and organizations, DNS is substantially less accurate in searches for smaller brands, companies, and organizations.

 

Posted on

Survey of Usage of the .BIZ TLD

Survey of Usage of the .BIZ TLD. (June 2002) With Jonathan Zittrain.

The authors examined a variety of data about registrations in .BIZ. Analysis suggests that at least 74% of currently registered .BIZ domains provide no web content or provide only error messages or placeholders. Using WHOIS data, we conclude that approximately 25% of .BIZ registrations are registered to the same organization that registered the corresponding .COM, and that such domains are about one-third less likely to provide substantive web content than domains registered by someone without a corresponding .COM registration. We document 4886 distinct .BIZ domains seemingly inconsistent with .BIZ registry anti-warehousing policies, suggesting that such policies are not being effectively enforced. Finally, we compare .BIZ registrar market shares with corresponding shares in .COM, .NET, and .ORG, and we summarize notable differences in registrar market share across TLDs.

 

Posted on

Alternative Perspectives on Registrar Market Share: The Fortune 1000, the Forbes International 500, and the Yahoo Directory

Alternative Perspectives on Registrar Market Share: The Fortune 1000, the Forbes International 500, and the Yahoo Directory. (May 2002)

Since the 1999 introduction of competitive registration of domain names, analysts have examined the market share of the various registrars now able to offer registrations in the gTLDs of .COM, .NET, and .ORG. Initially Network Solutions (subsequently bought by Verisign) served the entire market as the sole supplier of such domain names, but competitive registrars have subsequently come to have substantial market share. Understanding registrar market share is of interest in assessing the financial viability and proper valuation of each registrar, in selecting a registrar, and in understanding the registrar features and design seemingly of greatest interest to domain registrants.

Continued work by State of the Domain (among others) documents registrar market share as measured as a proportion of total COM, NET, and ORG domain names. In contrast, the work described in this document takes a different perspective, focusing instead on certain subsets of the domain registration market. In particular, this work considers the domains of the largest American firms (as listed in the Fortune 1000), the largest firms worldwide (as listed in the Forbes International 500), and the relatively well-known sites listed in leading web directory Yahoo. These subsets of the gTLD domain name space are of interest for the distinct registration markets they represent. Most notably, this analysis focuses on domains actually in active use; the design of these subsets seeks to exclude domain name speculators and warehousers, whose millions of domain registrations might prevent ordinary domain registration analysis from properly reflecting the registrations of all domains actually in current active use and most likely to be renewed in the future.

Analysis shows substantial divergence among the groups studied. For example, while Verisign’s market share across all COM, NET, and ORG registrations has fallen to 39.1%, its market share among the primary domains of Fortune 1000 companies remains 83.4%. Similarly, while 74.1% of domains in a 2001 snapshot of Yahoo are currently registered with Verisign, only 44.8% of recent additions to Yahoo use Verisign. Nonetheless, Verisign’s market share is in every category of domains found to be larger than SOTD reports; thus, excluding registrations by domain speculators and warehousers, it is likely that Verisign has a larger market share — of domains actually in use — than SOTD’s analysis has suggested. In the Results section of this document, similar data is provided for a variety of other registrars.

In this research, I document the registrars used by each of the Fortune 1000 companies, by each of the Forbes International 500 companies, and by each listing in Yahoo; I subsequently compare these registration patterns with the registrars used by the entire domain name registration market.

 

Posted on

.NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Registration Restrictions

.NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Registration Restrictions. (May 2002)

In 2000-2002, the ICANN New TLD Program coordinated the introduction of seven new top-level domains to the Internet’s Domain Name System. Among these new TLDs was .NAME, a namespace intended, according to an appendix to its agreements with ICANN, to be used for “personal name registrations” of the form JOHN.DOE.NAME. However, a large number of .NAME domains do not follow the format specified in ICANN’s agreement with the .NAME registry. Rather than matching the first and last names of their registrants, or matching their registrants’ commonly-used nicknames or pseudonyms, these many domains instead seem to have commercial, humorous, or other intentions inconsistent with the .NAME charter and the .NAME registration agreements that bind all .NAME registrants; to follow naming conventions other than those required by the .NAME registry; or to reflect defensive registrations performed outside .NAME’s official Defensive Registration system.

In this research, I document several thousand domains reregistered within .NAME that seem to be inconsistent with the .NAME registration restrictions as embodied in an appendix to .NAME’s agreement with ICANN, and as embodied in the eligibility requirements posted by the .NAME registry and accepted by all registrants. A review of these specific registrations as well as their general characteristics may be helpful in understanding the behavior at issue and in evaluating enforcement of registration restrictions in this and other TLDs.

 

Posted on

Large-Scale Intentional Invalid WHOIS Data: A Case Study of “NicGod Productions”/”Domains For Sale”

Large-Scale Intentional Invalid WHOIS Data: A Case Study of “NicGod Productions”/”Domains For Sale”. (April – May 2002.)

In recent years, many Internet users have become aware that domain name registrants do not always offer accurate contact information. The distributed “WHOIS” database storing and distributing this contact data is generally thought to be important for correcting technical errata, resolving disputes over domain name allocation, and holding web site operators responsible for the content they distribute. A series of contracts, from ICANN to registrars to registrants, requires that contact data be complete and accurate, but nonetheless certain registrants fail to properly provide the required contact information.

While many WHOIS errors likely result from accidental error in data entry or data processing, certain registrants have been found to intentionally provide systematically inaccurate contact information to registrars for inclusion in the WHOIS database. Such fraud can include the entry of invalid street addresses and phone numbers, i.e. contact information that in fact reaches no one, or it can instead offer as the purported registrant of a domain some third party in fact wholly unrelated to the domain.

In this article, I document documented 2754 domains reregistered by one particular firm known for its widespread use of invalid WHOIS contact information. The majority of these domains redirect users to a single web page displaying a list of links to content that is, by and large, unrelated; the remaining domain names provide access to sexually-explicit images. While this research is by no means exhaustive — other firms likely follow similar registration practices, and still others make numerous invalid registrations and reregistrations that no doubt differ in various ways — a review of these specific registrations as well as their general characteristics may be helpful in understanding the behavior at issue.

Note that this research is focused specifically on large-scale domain registrations. I do not address the questions of privacy, spam, and consumer protection raised by publication of individual registration data in the WHOIS database.

 

Posted on

Domains Reregistered for Distribution of Unrelated Content: A Case Study of “Tina’s Free Live Webcam”

Domains Reregistered for Distribution of Unrelated Content: A Case Study of “Tina’s Free Live Webcam”. (March – April 2002.)

In recent years, many Internet users have become aware that when domain names expire (after their original registrants forget, fail, or otherwise decline to renew them), the domain names may be reregistered by others. This feature of the management of the domain name system might be thought to be desirable since it allows and facilitates a turnover of names from those uninterested in using them to those who in fact do seek to put them to active use. But recent experience shows that this structure also allows domains to be renewed by firms who do not seem to seek to use the domains to offer original content but rather seem to hope to profit from the prior promotional works of others.

In particular, such firms often offer pornographic or sexually-explicit images, advertising, or links or redirects to other commercial sites. The apparent expectation of such firms is that at least some users will request the web pages previously (before domain expiration) hosting other content; any such users will instead be shown this new content, likely creating profits for the firms that reregistered the expired domain names.

In this article, I document several thousand domains reregistered by one particular firm — many domain names that all redirect users to one particular web page displaying sexually explicit images. While this research is by no means exhaustive — other firms are likely conducting similar registration practices, and still others make numerous registrations and reregistrations that no doubt differ in various ways — a review of these specific registrations as well as their general characteristics may be helpful in understanding the behavior at issue.