<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Re: [gnso-dow123] Request for Data: Individual vs. Commercial Registration
- To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Re: [gnso-dow123] Request for Data: Individual vs. Commercial Registration
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:24:28 -0200
- Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <BAY105-DAV156701DA4B71371A88E7CDD3D30@phx.gbl>
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <BAY105-DAV156701DA4B71371A88E7CDD3D30@phx.gbl>
- Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025)
Marilyn Cade wrote:
Thanks, Ross.
Where would your 'quick popular stats at our fingertips' research approach
put the 'professional portfolio' holders of thousands or millions of names?
Would they have been in the business sector or the individual sector?
As I mentioned in my earlier message, this isn't my research. Verisign
undertakes regular studies of the domain name industry and regularly
publishes their findings. We should engage them directly if we wish to
know more about their methodology.
The answer would not likely materially affect the results substantially
in either direction. The largest domain portfolios are held by
commercial corporations, and the sizes of these portfolio's numbers in
the hundreds of thousands of domains. As a percentage of overall
registrations, the numbers are actually fairly small, and thus any
incorrect categorization of individual portfolio's or registrations is
unlikely to have a material impact on the analysis.
Knowing a little bit about their methodology, my personal opinion would
be that the vast majority of the names held in secondary market
portfolios would probably have been classified as commercial
registrations. But again, this is purely my conjecture. If we are really
interested in hard data, we should ask.
-ross
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|