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).
New gTLDs are called New gTLDs. Enough said.
This is the main way the business can comprehend what we are discussing. Every other individuals just calls everything "spaces" or a couple of individuals call them "new areas" or even less call them "new augmentations".
No one outside the business realizes that gtlds are Generic Top-Level Domains. I am certain there are domainers that don't have the foggiest idea about that. It is as of now befuddling that a few people call "New gTLDs" just "gTLDs" and in "gTLDs" they do exclude .com, .net and .organization that were the ORIGINAL gTLDs!
BTW we call all the nation augmentations ccTLDs when no one in any of these nations know or care what ccTLDs are. This is to make sure we can impart simpler and quicker.
We didn't call .data and .business New gTLDs in light of the fact that they were only several expansions. New gTLDs are over a thousand and a couple of thousand more will before long accompany the following ICANN round.
Would you like to take "New" out of "New gTLDs"? Would you like to call them gTLDs? So how are we going to call .com and .organization?
Is it accurate to say that we are going to call all expansions gTLDs? Or then again would we say we are going to call New gTLDs, gTLDs and call .com, .net and .organization heritage gTLDs so we can recognize them?
They are called New gTLDs and that is the means by which we are going to call them. On the off chance that we change their name after 7+ years nobody in the business will ever comprehend what we are discussing.
ICANN call them New gTLDs. Is it accurate to say that we are going to speaking and expounding on New gTLDs with some other name while the main association calls them New gTLDs?
Enough with this. This is just filled by the New gTLD vaults that need the new good and gone so they look set up. We have progressively genuine things to talk about.
I first thought that we should now say "gTLDs". I keep using ccTLDs for "country codes" and use the term "legacy TLDs" for ".com" and his close friends.
The thing is that the ICANN plans more annual rounds of new gTLDs so to me...I guess that I will keep using the term #newgtlds
When gtlds arent new any longer, whats the problem with calling them 'gtlds'(!), instead of 'newgtlds'?
gtlds stands for general top level domains, so it includes also .com, .net and .org for example - so newgtlds is used to differentiate that
If it's any consolation, New Wave Music or British New Wave from the 80s is still "new", 30+ years later.
New gTLDs will still don their "new" cap years from now, because it defines a style during a time period rather than a factor that changes its age descriptor as time passes.
The Second gTLD Invasion could also work, I suppose.
Separate names with a comma.