What I'm saying is that ANY url has the same chance to rank as any other URL. It could be the domain name, it could be an actual page or file (such as a .PDF file) that ranks.

If you want to rank for "buy gold" and people link to www.buy.club then Google will potentially rank it for "buy gold".

If you DO have a keyword rich domain, including one that has a keyword in the extension, then it's more likely that people will link to you using those keyword(s). So that's why you're ranking.

Link | Posted on Aug 08, 2015 11:21 AM PDT by Bill Hartzer

Link | Posted on Aug 07, 2015 5:06 AM PDT by Christopher Hofman Laursen

So, if you have a keyword rich domain (.com or even a new extension) then it just helps--people will link to you with your preferred keywords.

Link | Posted on Aug 06, 2015 9:23 AM PDT by Bill Hartzer

http://blog.europeandomaincentre.com/google-reads-coffee-club-as-coffee-club/

Link | Posted on Aug 05, 2015 10:33 PM PDT by Christopher Hofman Laursen

All domain names and URLs are treated the same from the beginning. It only makes sense for Google to do that, from an SEO perspective. Google doesn't need to give any preference to certain extensions, as the key ranking factors are not related to the domain name itself: the quality of the content on the and off-page or off-site factors. That doesn't mean that a keyword rich domain name won't help rankings, though. If you have a keyword rich domain name or new extension, then other sites tend to mention your site, refer to your site, and use keywords to describe your site. It's those type of factors that could ultimately influence rankings, not any preference that Google might give "just because" you have a keyword rich new extension or domain.

Certain domain name extensions that require domain owners meet certain qualifications isn't necessarily Google's issue, either. Other websites could choose to only link to certain websites with high standards (like an Attorney directory only listing .attorney sites). It's not Google's decision, but Google's algorithm may tend to really like that particular directory. It's not Google directly deciding on the preference of .attorney domain names or sites with that extension.

When it comes to PPC, Google AdWords, and keyword preferences of Google AdWords, the Memorable Domains study is helpful, but not necessarily relevant to this article. What's more interesting is the research that Globe Runner has done to study the effects keyword rich new extensions versus .com domains: https://globerunner.com/com-vs-new-gtld-domain-names-8-months-later/ that shows the results of testing .COM versus the new extensions.

The Domain Name Association has recently released a white paper about SEO and Domain Names that addresses several of these issues, and moving to a dot brand domain.

Finally, the statement "Not a single brand has paid the $185,000 ICANN application fee"… is untrue, as I recall Barclay's bank already using a .barclays domain name, and several others that I won't mention.

Link | Posted on Aug 05, 2015 4:01 PM PDT by Bill Hartzer

Link | Posted on Aug 05, 2015 12:23 AM PDT by Christopher Hofman Laursen

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 6:48 PM PDT by Kevin Murphy

"The AU Commission would like to hereby categorically state that it is not supporting any one individual or organization in this bid."

If you were reviewing this statement as part of an evaluation, what would you take from that statement? Perhaps that you need to ask the AUC to state clearly and explicitly whether it support one, or both or neither of the bids for .africa.

Which is exactly what the "independent experts" InterConnect suggested. And were then overruled by ICANN's exec team.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 3:00 PM PDT by Kieren McCarthy

Considering UNECA rejected DCA in public comments when they thought it applied to .dotafrica as a countermeasure, it seems the UNECA endorsement is outdated just the AUC one also was:
https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/6481

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 2:44 PM PDT by Rubens Kuhl

Besides, AUC endorsement alone is not a qualifying criteria, should that matter. DCA has the endorsement of the UNECA.  Perhaps under the new 360 degree rule change of ICANN to assist ZACR, I can see that to be a possible dis/qualifying criteria!

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 2:39 PM PDT by I Lampeka

http://www.au.int/en/content/africa-union-commission-clarification-dot-africa

Did nobody think to mention this to ICANN or InterConnect?

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 2:04 PM PDT by Kevin Murphy

Basically, the endorsements for the ZACR bid from African countries did not meet the criteria in the applicant guidebook.

Now, whether this means that they simply didn't know what they had to say (as AUC/ZACR would not doubt argue), or whether the countries were not actually supporting ZACR's bid but the general notion of a '.africa' top-level domain (as DCA would no doubt argue) - that is something that the evaluators may need to look at.

What happened was that the evaluators suggested that going back to 30+ governments and asking them to send new, clearer letters was probably not the best approach. So they argued instead that the AUC be accepted as representative - that way you only have to deal with one entity to pass the bid.

When it came to the fact that both the ZACR and DCA claimed to have support from the AUC, the evaluators suggested that they go to the AUC and ask definitely who they support: whether one or the other, or both, or neither.

ICANN stepped on that plan - you can speculate as to why - and told its "independent" experts to go to the applicants themselves and get new letters from the AUC.

But then the ICANN Board took the GAC advice and eliminated the DCA bid: something that the review panel said was the wrong thing to do as the Board failed to do any real due diligence around the advice and failed to let DCA be heard in the process.

Once DCA was out of the process (at least to ICANN's mind), ICANN then changed its mind re: getting the applicant to go to the AUC direct and instead ICANN staff drew up a letter which they then sent the AUC. The AUC sent it back to ICANN (with some changes that were most likely drafted by ZACR) and ICANN told its evaluators to approve the '.africa' ZACR bid on the back of it.

So… after all of that…

Sophia is in fact perfectly correct when she says that individual governments did not properly endorse the ZACR bid. Those letters of support were never rewritten to meet the appropriate criteria. Instead the AUC's letter was taken as representative of the countries.

Hope that clears things up.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 1:34 PM PDT by Kieren McCarthy

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 1:14 PM PDT by Kevin Murphy

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 1:08 PM PDT by Rubens Kuhl

The article does mention the ghost writing of the letter by ICANN staff which is enough reason to establish the requisite endorsement.  It matters not that the IRP panel rules over a specific endorsement over ZACR or DCA or any other issue that may have came out in the IRP discovery process or witness testimony.  The panel in making their overall decision over the IRP matters have stated that ICANN has broken its bylaws and article of incorporation in the treatment of DCA’s application. 

ICANN is free to interpret it to their liking and see if their decision prevail again.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 12:55 PM PDT by I Lampeka