In 2012, ICANN started the monumental process of releasing the new class of domain extensions. This represented the largest introduction of new extensions in over two decades. As such, over 1,900 applications were submitted to ICANN, with 751 of those applications being contested. Large corporations such as Google and Amazon submitted 101 and 76 applications respectively.
By November 2013, following a lottery and a public comment period, extensions such as .BIKE, .GURU and .CLOTHING entered the sunrise period.
Since then, according to ICANN, 1,230 domain extensions have been introduced into the Internet, with over 26.2 million domains registered. Based on statistics from nTLDStats.com, the most popular extensions to date in terms of overall registrations are .TOP, .XYZ and .LOAN, followed by .CLUB and .SITE.
Google has released the popular .APP and .DEV extensions, which have amassed over half a million domain registrations between them.
Throughout all of this, the most popular term to describe these new extensions is “new gTLD”. The “gTLD” comes from the acronym for “Generic Top-Level Domains”. ICANN describes these extensions as “New gTLD’s” repeatedly on their website, and it has become a widely used term amongst investors, often shortened to “nTLD” (new top-level domain).
The idea of these new gTLD’s came into fruition in 2012, meaning that the concept is seven years old this year. Can something that is seven years old still be described as “new”? In 2012, a Bitcoin was worth $13, the iPhone 5 was new to the market, and the first of the Avengers movies was released.
Whilst there are new extensions being released, the concept of a "new gTLD" is firmly embedded into the minds of most investors, and end users, particularly in emerging tech sectors, are familiar with these extensions, even if they do often opt to operate on other ccTLD's or gTLD's. Could the fact that these are "new" extensions even be putting potential end-users off using them?
I thought it'd be interesting to see what a host of popular registrars use to describe "new gTLD's". GoDaddy has a whole section dedicated to "New Domain Extensions", NameCheap uses the term "New TLD's", and Uniregistry uses "New Domain Extensions".
Although this may be a pointless endeavor, I would like to pose the question: should we rename "new gTLD's"? I have heard the term "vanity TLD's" being used before, but I don't think this accurately describes the new format.
My own personal preference would be to call the flock of new extensions "expansion TLD's (eTLD's)", as these extensions expand on the original group of .COM, .NET and .ORG extensions. This is by no means an original phrase, as I have seen it mentioned a couple of times in historical blog posts. However, I think it fits the bill well.
Could the rebranding of "new gTLD's" to something that gives these extensions a sense of history, establishment, and permanence attract more potential users to these extensions?
By November 2013, following a lottery and a public comment period, extensions such as .BIKE, .GURU and .CLOTHING entered the sunrise period.
Since then, according to ICANN, 1,230 domain extensions have been introduced into the Internet, with over 26.2 million domains registered. Based on statistics from nTLDStats.com, the most popular extensions to date in terms of overall registrations are .TOP, .XYZ and .LOAN, followed by .CLUB and .SITE.
Google has released the popular .APP and .DEV extensions, which have amassed over half a million domain registrations between them.
Throughout all of this, the most popular term to describe these new extensions is “new gTLD”. The “gTLD” comes from the acronym for “Generic Top-Level Domains”. ICANN describes these extensions as “New gTLD’s” repeatedly on their website, and it has become a widely used term amongst investors, often shortened to “nTLD” (new top-level domain).
The idea of these new gTLD’s came into fruition in 2012, meaning that the concept is seven years old this year. Can something that is seven years old still be described as “new”? In 2012, a Bitcoin was worth $13, the iPhone 5 was new to the market, and the first of the Avengers movies was released.
Whilst there are new extensions being released, the concept of a "new gTLD" is firmly embedded into the minds of most investors, and end users, particularly in emerging tech sectors, are familiar with these extensions, even if they do often opt to operate on other ccTLD's or gTLD's. Could the fact that these are "new" extensions even be putting potential end-users off using them?
I thought it'd be interesting to see what a host of popular registrars use to describe "new gTLD's". GoDaddy has a whole section dedicated to "New Domain Extensions", NameCheap uses the term "New TLD's", and Uniregistry uses "New Domain Extensions".
Although this may be a pointless endeavor, I would like to pose the question: should we rename "new gTLD's"? I have heard the term "vanity TLD's" being used before, but I don't think this accurately describes the new format.
My own personal preference would be to call the flock of new extensions "expansion TLD's (eTLD's)", as these extensions expand on the original group of .COM, .NET and .ORG extensions. This is by no means an original phrase, as I have seen it mentioned a couple of times in historical blog posts. However, I think it fits the bill well.
Could the rebranding of "new gTLD's" to something that gives these extensions a sense of history, establishment, and permanence attract more potential users to these extensions?
