Alt Extensions, sounds good imo
"New Extensions" -- is good; Even end user understands the term.
My car is 17 years old. Still looks pretty cool and drives fine. It cost me outright what most people pay every month for theirs. No premium renewals there
I'm reading this thread on my thirteen year old macbook, but true this is ready to be replaced
""New domain extension" suits me fine as I have it in dot com.
Thanks for the obvious. The fact is that most "new" extension owners also own the .com at some point because they cant really run it on just example.random and get type in traffic.
As always an interesting and informational read @James Iles !
Personally, I don't actually feel very strongly either way. Yes most are not new anymore (although In Canada we have a major political party starting with the word new that has been around since 1961!).
Why I don't feel strongly is that while a category is useful to domainers, say doing stats using tools like NameBio or listings like DNJournal, the end user simply views any as a domain. Yes, there are a whole host of characteristics, including how many others use that TLD, but lumping dissimilar domains into one category name does not provide useful information.
The "new" gTLDs are really a combination of different types of domains. The geo oriented ones (like .nyc) are very different from the niche ones (like .dog or ..app) which in turn are different from the broadly generic ones (like .site or .xyz or .online).
Many view (even confuse) what are formally considered legacy alternative extensions (like .name or .pro or .mobi) with new gTLDs even though they are not by ICANN terminology.
I think it is important to designate extensions that are distinctly different such as the brand ones that are restricted to the owner of the TLD and the restricted ones (like .coop, a legacy extension that can only be used by a recognized cooperative venture).
I wouldn't change it. New extensions probably won't stop popping up.
Cant call them new forever..
Heres my top two votes
Better Generic Top Level Domains
Relevent Generic Top Level Domains
I think this has been discussed in other threads too, always fun to circle back to. Having "new" in defining the new extensions isn't going away anytime soon, even when they get old. Eventually they'll just be normal domain names to the public, but likely to investors still defined by "new", just as a point of separation because we need that.
For example, Regular Joe doesn't know his ccTLD is a ccTLD, he just knows its his domain name or the name of his website.
There was some traction on another name for the gTLDs, a la "Next Gen" names or "Next Generation" names.
Personally I think we just go with "G Spot", what do you think? Because that's what they hit, with a good combo.
They should be renamed to Custom Domain Extensions.
I had many negotiations with endusers (my inbound buyers) - and never heard NewTLD/nTLD/New* from them...
So looks that only domainers and some registrars use those terms...
Well from your other posts you have experience selling non dot com so your end user doesn't know much like most which is how we make money they don't need to know just their appeal.
Personally I group them into three categories:
2. Location TLD's (.fr, .nyc etc.)
3. Descriptor TLD's (everything else).
Separate names with a comma.