Joseph Peterson asks, “when is new not really new,” and proposes new terminology to clarify it.
Going into the new year, I decided to make a little glossary of domaining definitions. That includes words many people use already, some terms I’ve been tossing around privately for years, and a few I’ve invented on the fly to clarify what (to me) seems vague.
This sounds presumptuous, but I’m not insisting on any of this lingo. This isn’t the “right” terminology. Helpful, at best. If a handful of you find a label handy, terrific!
The first, and the subject of today’s post, is:
nTLD – Short for “new TLD”, this refers to any of the hundreds of new gTLDs whose release began with 2014 and will continue throughout 2015. Although these TLDs are quite diverse and won’t always be new, they do belong to a discernible movement whose aim is to introduce widespread novelty online. Right now, they are discussed as a bundle, distinct from earlier gTLDs; and “nTLD” is one label that has arisen.
So if people are saying “nTLD” already, then why belabor the issue? For starters, there has been so much talk about new gTLDs that a significant percentage of domainers would declare themselves pro-.COM and anti-gTLD – even though .COM itself is a gTLD, along with .NET, .ORG, and most established extensions apart from country codes such as .DE, .ME, .CA, and .IN. Since people have naturally sought a label, we’re better off using “nTLD” rather than see such confusion about the meaning of “gTLD”.
Even in the future, these nTLDs may be recognized as belonging – if not to a category – then to a “generation”, owing to the circumstances of their introduction. ICANN has flooded the market with nTLDs in a way drastically different from the slower pace we saw from .BIZ (2001) through .MOBI (2005) to .XXX (2011). At some point, people might begin to think of meaningful suffixes like .PRO, .TRAVEL, .TV, .FM, .ME, .US, .IT, and .ASIA as being grouped with .CLUB, .GURU, and .PROPERTY even though they preceded the nTLDs by years and include what are technically ccTLDs rather than gTLDs. If they blur the lines, then let them! Nevertheless, the distinction can be made. Not everyone will apply a a label, but we may wish to.
To be as precise as possible, “nTLD” ought to apply to this large set of domain suffixes regardless of timing, whereas the phrase “new TLD” ought to be reserved for recent or forthcoming releases. This may sound pedantic, but it does lead to practical advantages. For example consider this sentence:
The old nTLDs had higher first-week registration numbers than new nTLDs.
How awkward without the word “nTLD”! Should we say “the old new TLDs” or “the new new TLDs”? Wouldn’t “the old TLDs” refer to .COM, .EDU, and .GOV? Communication is much cleaner if “nTLD” has this recognized meaning. Moreover, we can use nTLD as an adjective, which permits us to make logical statements we otherwise can’t. For instance, we can ask:
How does nTLD adoption in the USA compare to nTLD registration and development patterns in Europe?
We’re asking about the past. However, had we attempted to ask this same question without the “nTLD” label, then we’d accidentally find ourselves inquiring about the future:
How does new TLD adoption in the USA compare to new TLD registration and development patterns in Europe?
Substituting the phrases “adoption of new TLDs” and “registration / development of new TLDs” is no solution because “new TLD” remains ambiguous. Are we talking about last week’s 5 new TLDs or about the hundreds of nTLDs rolled out thus far? It does make a difference. Nobody wants convoluted circumlocutions, but we do need to rely on being understood. This word “nTLD” may not be a formal ICANN category, but it’s the simplest means to an end. Today its meaning is quite clear. Years from now, what an “nTLD” is may need to be revised; but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. At the moment, anybody writing about the domain industry may find the word “nTLD” a useful or even irreplaceable tool.
not-Tom says
How about “Not-Coms”?
Joseph I believe you are on to something here. There seems to be little consistency in the media as to what to call these new dot-addresses. In articles both within and outside the domain industry, references to new gtlds range from “new web extensions”, ‘new domain endings”, and a long list of other phrases and acronyms. Some headlines actually refer to them as “new .com endings”, which clearly exacerbates confusion.
It’s true, the time for a consistent moniker for this “discernible movement whose aim is to introduce widespread novelty online“, has come.
It is also true that varying use of “new” in regard to these url suffixes is ambiguous and can result in awkward phrasing.
While I welcome and appreciate the suggestion of “nTLDs” as a common point of reference for these web extensions belonging – if not to a category – then to a “generation”, owing to the circumstances of their introduction” I wonder, Is using an acronym which represents terms used almost exclusively among a tiny sector of the population the best choice?
The truth is that 99.9% of the internet using population outside the conference halls of the Tropicana Hotel this week have no idea what “nTLD” represents. To most it sounds like a sandwich you might order at a deli. Also, the reality is that of the varying terminology used to refer to new gtlds, “nTLDs” is one of the least common, and least known. When I type “nTLD” into the google search box, it believes I have made a typo, and makes entirely unrelated suggestions as to what it thinks I may rather have intended to type.
Why not re-package the new extensions with a moniker that is meaningful, memorable and better suited for mass consumption?
One of the biggest challenges to the New gTLDs currently is public awareness. Indeed, a consistent theme in the community reently is the need for New gTLD registries, or ICANN to undertake a widespread awareness and education campaign. Suggestions are emerging that ICANN allocate last resort auction proceeds to a public awareness initiative.
You have suggested that lines between newer and older nTLDs would be fine to be blurred, that earlier tlds, including cctlds could eventually be grouped along with these latest from the ICANN New gTLD Program. Why don’t we just clarify these lines straightaway. What is the distinction, really?
It’s Dot-com vs. Not-com
The term “not-coms” can go a long way to educate the public as to what nTLDs actually are. It’s catchy and descriptive. It can be a valuable tool to help reduce confusion.
Initially, when users start seeing addresses such as “Drive.BMW”, “Tickets.NYC”, they’ll be confused as to what it represents. It looks like a web address, but seems to be . . missing something. If consumers are educated to the fact that new “not-com” addresses are now possible, it will shorten the recognition and acceptance curve.
Anti, and Pro-gTLD factions can polarize themselves into one or other camp. It’s Dot-com vs, Not-com. Let the debate rage. Let consumers decide. It could make things interesting.
So, for an eye-catching, interesting and meaningful reference to ICANN New gTLDs, perhaps those writing about the domain industry for an audience outside the domain industry might consider “Not-Coms” a valuable tool as well.
Joseph Peterson says
When speaking to people outside the domain industry, I try to use words they’re already familiar with such as “extension”, “suffix”, or “ending”. Gradually, I might mix in “TLD” or “nTLD” in a way that allows them to quickly understand it’s a synonym. No point in dwelling on terminology with a lay audience; the whole point is to get to the point.
The problem with dividing discussions into .COM and non-.COM is that it doesn’t adequately characterize the actual landscape.
To someone in Australia .ORG and .COM.AU and .PHOTOGRAPHY belong to 3 very distinct groups – legacy gTLDs, ccTLDs, and new gTLDs (or nTLDs). By lumping these all together as non-.COMs, the focus becomes fuzzy.
JP says
I think there are further subdivisions such as rTlds (relevant tlds) ans bTlds (brand tlds). The remainder after that are the generic nTlds.
Joseph Peterson says
There was a college campus somewhere – so the story goes – that didn’t know where to lay their paved walkways across campus. If they let a landscape architect draw up a plan on paper, the real-life pedestrians would cut short cuts across the lawn, wearing down the grass to dirt. So they decided to wait and watch what natural pathways emerged. Then they paved over those.
What I’m getting at is that the term “dot Brand” has already gained currency. Since it’s quite clear and already fairly well established, I think we’d be unwise to try replacing it with “bTLD”. People are already speaking about “dot Brands” online, and there seem to be no issues of ambiguity.
With “nTLD” we’re halfway there. Ambiguities between “nTLD” and “new TLD” are an issue. And people still use “gTLD” incorrectly as if it meant “new gTLD”. So there is some motivation to introduce this word to folks.
After a year or more of writing about nTLDs, I’m seeing more and more people sharing the term; but it’s hardly universal. If it were brand new, it might never catch on. But at this point, it’s pretty far along the path toward acceptance, which helps.
Tom G says
Maybe not-Tom is onto something there?
Flavius Laurentiu says
I suggest the term LgTLD, liberalized generic top level domains. For me makes sense.
“Liberalize = Remove or loosen restrictions on (something, typically an economic or political system).” For example, liberalize the ICANN gTLD policy.
For .com, .net, .info, .org I suggest PgTLD, primary generic top level domains.
“Primary = constituting or belonging to the first stage in any process.”
Christopher Hofman Laursen says
I Joseph,
It’s an interesting subject and one I’ve been focussing on for some time. I started out calling them new gTLDs. Whether they are called nTLDs, lgTLD or whatever abbreviation, I’m fine with any of these since I and anyone else in the industry know the terms.
The issue is when you market them outside the industry. Asking around many people think that top level domains are some kind of premium domain. In the end we ran a survey, which term would make more sense to people outside the industry. A. Top level domains B. Domain endings C. Domain extensions.
Top level domains were the least favoured. 50% of the 500 respondents actually preferred Domain endings.
We took the consequence and are now calling them domain endings on our blog, and we are shortly releasing an infographic where we decided tp use the same term. All in the name of getting the word out outside the industry.
Joseph Peterson says
That’s very interesting, Christopher. … and good news for the owner of DomainEndings.com.