Some countries have traditionally required websites to use structures such as example.co.uk, example.com.au, or example.co.nz instead of allowing direct registrations like example.uk, example.au, or example.nz. The UK, New Zealand, and Australia have introduced flat ccTLD options while preserving existing domains and, in some cases, giving current registrants priority access to the matching shorter name. Is this becoming a broader trend, and are other countries likely to make the same change over the next decade?
2 Answers
The policy is entirely up to each country-code registry, so there probably won't be a universal shift. Direct registrations make domains shorter and give registries more names to sell, but country-specific subdomains can still be useful for distinguishing businesses, organizations, government services, and other categories. Countries such as Brazil, Japan, and South Korea still commonly use structured second-level domains.
A useful way to compare countries is to check the public suffix rules and examine zone-file data for each ccTLD. If nearly all active names use a structure like .co.xx, that suggests the registry still enforces or strongly favors second-level categories. If direct registrations already exist alongside those categories, the country may be more likely to expand flat registrations later. Government naming is a separate issue, since structured domains such as government.example can provide a recognizable trust signal even when ordinary commercial sites use a flat ccTLD.
That distinction matters. A registry might open direct registrations for ordinary websites while keeping special government or organizational subdomains in place.