I asked a friend whether ICANN’s new domain-extension application list was out.
He said yes and sent me the link.
I had no intention of building a website. I was curious, opened the data and started looking. Then one question became another.
That rabbit hole became NamespaceSignals.
For anyone outside the domain industry, these are applications to operate new internet extensions beyond familiar ones like .com and .uk. Each application gives us something to examine: a requested name, an applicant, and information about the organisation behind it.
A list tells you what was submitted. Understanding what it means takes more work.
That is the part I enjoy.
My background has taken me through domain-name law and intellectual property, registries, registrars, data and now cybersecurity. Each perspective brings different questions. Who owns something? Who operates it? Who distributes it? Who might actually use it?
Those questions rarely fit neatly into one professional box. Neither does my thinking.
When I work with data, I look for the connections that change the picture.
Counting applicant names gives you one view. Discovering that several belong to the same corporate group gives you another.
Counting applications that face another applicant tells you something useful. Looking at what percentage of each company’s portfolio faces that overlap tells you something different.
Neither calculation is inherently better. The question determines which one matters.
I have been putting my AI masterclass learning into practice through this independent, after-hours project. AI helps me organise ideas, test comparisons and turn questions into something people can explore.
I don’t use it to replace my thinking. I use it to express my thinking, then challenge it.
That still requires checking sources, reproducing calculations and being willing to discover that an interesting idea does not hold up.
A pattern can be real without our explanation for it being correct. Fewer applications, for example, do not automatically mean less interest. A company may already operate extensions, have acquired new brands or be pursuing different priorities. Those are possibilities to investigate, not conclusions to attach to a number.
NamespaceSignals separates verified facts, calculated findings, supported interpretations and hypotheses. I want readers to see what the evidence supports and where it stops.
The aim is to help someone notice a blind spot, ask a better question or understand what deserves a closer look. If a finding helps them make a more informed decision, even better.
That approach applies well beyond domain names. The habit is the same: look carefully, connect the relevant pieces, question your first interpretation and explain the limits.
This is an evolving personal project. Some questions will lead to useful findings. Others may lead to “we don’t know yet.” Both belong in honest analysis.
If you explore it, I would love to know: what helped you see something differently, and what question would you ask next?
ICANN publishes the data. NamespaceSignals helps you understand what it means.
0 Comments