Relying on nameserver data is pointless. You need to use the ICANN monthly reports which would include the registrar of record.

Regards

Michele

and no I don’t work for DomainMonster, but am a happy customer with a portfolio of over a thousand domains with them, none of which would list domainmonsters nameserver if you checked

Our release is about new gTLDs released in the past two years – nothing more. To help inform those interested in the name spaces that are appearing now via ccTLDs and set for the imminent horizon with ICANNs plans. Particularly at GA launch – where it counts for getting the good name space while you can at sensible pricing.

Regardless of Whether you are a supporter of anything other than a .com is a different debate. Offline I’d be happy to discuss the economics of ICANNs plans here, so feel free to get in touch.

There are a couple of other worthy points here that my first comment didn’t really highlight and feel I should to do us justice:

1) Domainmonster are regularly in the top 25 fastest growing nowadays out of 940 odd ICANN registrars. One would therefore hope being in the top 3 percentile doesn’t make us so un-known anymore

2) A worthy note is that ccTLDs launches aren’t included in our numbers. If you could get each of these launches to formally release their numbers, the picture looks even better for us and this is actually the fastest growing market right now, not gTLDs.

3) Finally, we take one reference point of Go-Daddy in this release. Take the current Top 10 by total existing volume and paste them all up against the same launch data. You’ll be totally shocked at how they’ve all under performed in marketing new name spaces and many of those have data in both launch columns!

Hope that clarifys a little more. Once again we don’t dispute your points and that’s not what our release is trying to highlight here. Seems electing Go-Daddy as our reference point is putting this off-track a little.

Thanks once again for the healthy chat and originating article from Andrew.

http://www.hosterstats.com/HistoricalDomainStatistics.php?hoster=domaincontrol.com

This is the historical growth for domainmonster.com’s domainmonster.com nameservers:
http://www.hosterstats.com/HistoricalDomainStatistics.php?hoster=domainmonster.com

There is a huge gulf between the two hosters. In sheer volume of registrations over a basket of TLDs, Godaddy is typically one of the global market leaders. The growth curve for new gTLDs after their landrush period generally falls away dramatically from the halcyon days of the landrush. The growth curve for .asia showed this massive fall-off to such an extent that it is now displaying the growth characteristics of a small ccTLD.

http://www.hosterstats.com/Detailed-asia-Statistics-2008.php

So domainmonster.com did well in the launch of .asia and .tel sTLDs. The problem is that the bulk of domain registration globally is concentrated in .com TLD and the bulk of UK registrations are concentrated in .co.uk registrations. In terms of new domains, Godaddy has been had 927834 new com/net/org/biz/info/mobi domains between 01/February/2010 and 01/March/2010. The new domain count for domainmonster.com in the same gTLDs was 2051 domains. The net growth for domainmonster.com over these gTLDs in the period was 1451 domains. The net growth for Godaddy over the same period and gTLDs was 513275 domains. Perhaps domainmonster.com has more on its 37 nameservers than just the *.domainmonster.com nameservers (it had a November 2009 count of 6851 in .asia as Mesh Digital Limited) but in terms of growth and marketshare, Godaddy is the significant player in the global market.

Domainmonster.com/Mesh Digital Limited may have done well in some new gTLDs that have had less than massive success but having a few thousand new domains registered just doesn’t compare with having a footprint of tens of millions of domains. While the press release may be accurate in the claims about these new minor gTLDs, it is very misleading because Godaddy and quite a few other registrars massively outnumber Mesh Digital Limited in the number of new domains they register individually each month. The headline of the press release is quite wrong.

Feel free to get in touch and we can provide the supporting data. To help you do the math, its Based upon March and April data combined for each launch year and 1 year new creates (Therefore GA), so a little more than a month after each General Availability (GA). This is stated in the release.

Yes Go-Daddy didn’t choose to participate in .tel so receive a 0 for that, both launches being broadly the same size at launch.

Our release isn’t intended to pick holes in any of our friends at other registrars or we would of released a wider set of data. Actually Go-Daddy sat 3rd overall, but closest in terms of the retail space.

We are clearly keen to highlight our success, factually and fairly. GA is when it counts. That’s sensible pricing at launch and when the bulk of names get secured, so one month past GA is a fair measure. Including both gTLD launches in the time frame is of course equally fair (Accepted there have been two) whether participating or not.

Hope that helps provide a balanced view and thank you for your kind words.