I had a discussion on Twitter with Ray Hackney and Theo Develegas regarding the coloquial naming of the new gTLD domain name extensions. I have almost always referred to them as the “new gTLDs” or something along those lines, and Ray pointed out that they are no longer “new,” having been introduced several years ago.
Ray has a point. These new extensions are not really new. However, from my perspective, they are still relatively new to the general public. In addition, the introduction of the new extensions has taken several years and some are still in the process of being introduced or approved (hello, .Amazon). While they are no longer “new,” they are sort of new and novel.
If we decided not to call these extensions “new” anymore, I don’t exactly know what to call them. Ray suggested “Noncoms,” which seems to fit, but that doesn’t differentiate them from ccTLD domain names or the older non-.com extensions like .mobi, .pro, .travel, .aero, and others that were introduced before these new, new extensions. Perhaps that differentiation doesn’t even matter? Prior to the launch of the new gTLD program, I believe it was David Castello who coined the term “vanity TLDs.” Maybe that works better? I don’t know.
Let me know what you think about calling the new extensions “new” by voting in the poll below. Perhaps even more importantly, share a comment with what you think they should be called when I reference them in articles.
No, they should be called “DEAD”. 🙂
lol Rick 🙂 you are awesome
I would go with best-website.com instead of best.website
According to you Rick, they should be called “perpetually dying” 🙂
I’ve called all domain extensions that are not .COM NonComs or NotComs for awhile now to end-users.
I only call them new gTLD’s nTLD’s TLD’s ccTLD’s when talking about the domain Industry.
Most end-users have no idea what TLD nTLD new gTLD or ccTLD means.
How about “Newest top level domains”
They should still be called “New,” even for a hundred years.
They are categorically different from the “legacy TLDs.”
If you do not differentiate and distinguish them from the original NON-OWNED gTLDs, then all you are doing is strengthening the TOTAL BS (like, for example, the absurdly bamboozling and meaningless gobbledygook about “maturity” anyone?) by which an agenda to remove price controls which people have heavily relied on at great cost of time, money and life can be imposed and sold to the sheep-sheared public with the usual total BS rationalization given.
I think they should continue to be and always be called new. Everyone knows they are not new but the word has become a differentiator from the other extensions.
For convenience sake, we could also say “neotlds,” like “neocons” and “neoliberal.”
And the .com for that is available, so go for it. 🙂
We still call it New York , New Jersey and New Mexico and it has been a couple of hundred years
The situation is different in my opinion. Word “New” is part of those states’ names. But the TLDs we are referring to do not have word “New” as part of their names.
It’s like saying “New Mexico is a new state” or “We are traveling to a new state called New Mexico” in 2019. That sounds weird.
Some good points made in the discussion. In practice they probably will keep the name, even though it is unfortunate and some use it for legacy alternate TLDs which by ICANN definition are different from new gTLDs. Since fundamentally any TLD has the same role, I am not sure that the name is helpful and why not call them all simply TLDs? If there was a name change a NP user suggested novel which would keep the acronym the same but remove the new. I think it might be helpful to have a name that applied only to restricted TLDs (like the brand ones and ones like .coop that you need a certain designation to use).
If something is unfamiliar it is often branded “new” even though it way not be. I don’t think anything is going to change with this terminology.
dotINFO and TEL are still “new” to many, so may as well keep referring to this bunch as as #newGTLDs [ mostly because #pointlessandfailingicannround1moneygrab is more difficult to type (so much so my tweet/reply got lost in the ether!) ]
GTLD = Good To Lose Dollars
Oh and lest I forget, as I pointed out at some other blogs, I have this for them: 😉
(Even for the ones I actually like.) 😉
I’m fine with calling them “new gTLD” for now. But because they will not be “new” forever, I think ICANN can introduce a different way of calling them.
It would be weird that, after 20 years, at that time people all know .space and you still say “.space is a new gTlD”.
People will never “all know .space”. Most domainers wouldn’t even have heard of it (I haven’t).
I was talking about the situation “after 20 years”. I don’t think domainers in 2039 won’t have heard of .space.
If “people all know” sounds arbitrary, how about “most internet users know”?
How would they know about thousands of tlds?
There are a lot of moving parts. Of course we as domainers know them as top level domains and the newer extensions we call new so (new TLD’s). By now the ones that came out in 2014 aren’t really new anymore, but there are still new ones coming out so those would still be considered new. Alternative domain extensions is a good term that the public, common person and marketing department could catch onto. It’s what I like to call them to people who aren’t domainers or a techie like myself. Analogy: In the crypto market there is Bitcoin and then there are alt-coins. Some alt-coins perform well and make people money even though Bitcoin was first. In the domain market there is .com and alternative extensions. All can be used. The internet is evolving rapidly and as it continues to do so, new extensions will be a wonderful part of that landscape.
I vote for uTLDs, the “u” can stand for many things; unknown,unwanted,ugly