A post published today in Dreamcommerce.com about new gTLD’s and the article is more of a nightmare than a “Dream”
The post’s problems start with the title “Most wanted new gTLD in 2017” citing .China as “most wanted” new gTLD’s
The problem is China like all countries are not allowed to be a TLD. You could not apply for a country as a new gTLD according to the ICANN Guidebook which was published well before the application period opened for new gTLD’s and years before the 1st new gTLD went live almost 3 years ago.
However the post in Dreamcommerce.com starts out by saying:
“About 6 million new websites were registered last year and about 9% of them are the new, original gTLD’s. The most trending ending – .china – has reached an increase of over 10% registrations.”
Ok so I don’t know what ” new, original gTLD’s” even means.
The post then goes on to say that “while popular .xyz (who they incorrectly says is owned by CentralNic) has decreased – 11%”
I don’t know what chart they are looking at but .xyz started 2016 with just under 1.8 million registrations and started 2017 with 6.7 million registrations according to ntldstats.com. So basically there are 3.5X more .xyz registrations in 2017 than 2016 not sure how they get an 11% decrease out of that.
The post then goes on to once again falsely claim that .win is owned by Neustar which it is not.
The author of the post obviously does not understand the difference between the owner of an extension and the backend provider that is responsible for making the extension work on a technical basis.
The post then goes on to say “Branded gTLD’s have become popular too. ICANN has allowed to register endings like .phillips, .bayern or .audi.”
Well of course they are popular in terms of applications but not in terms of use and of course not in terms of number of domain registrations which the story seems to be about.
The author of the post appears to think that .web has launched already saying “gTLD .web is trending and users have been lacking an intuitive & available domains, that redirect them to their pages.”
Finally the post goes back to the idea of a country new gTLD (as opposed to ccTLD’s) classifying them as “Countries, Cities & Places”
“Last year there were over 20 new gTLD’s with cities like .barcelona or .vegas registered. These are popular also for countries, as businesses want to be more and more localised”
Sorry guys no countries and no “places” just cities.
The article ends with
“A perfect gTLD can be a description of a service – whether it’s produced in a eco-friendly way (.organic, .eco, .bio)” well those are some of the least registered new gTLD’s and .eco hasn’t even launched (scheduled for general availability in April 2017).
There are other incorrect statements throughout the post.
If you want to check out the entire post you can here
Thanks for that info. I was not even aware of that rule, though it certainly makes sense.
Michael, I’m rather disappointed, and rather surprised. Please consider what I just posted here last night – thedomains . com/2017/01/09/no-good-domain-blogs-i-predicted-it-back-in-2011/#comment-218033 – to be currently revoked because you censored out what I consider to be an extremely important and the most important part of what I just posted here in this thread today.
What was the problem with what you censored out of my post here? That you have a financial interest in the .USA project perhaps? Or some friend of yours?
Only allowing part of my post here today to appear is actually quite deceptive and misleading to people and misrepresents what I was communicating.
And until perhaps this gets deleted too, this was the second part of what my first post originally contained, minus the live link (spaces added):
“So does that mean this unbelievably presumptuous project will not be allowed to rape and bastardize .US:
http : // www . dot-usa . info/”
John
I removed that part of the post because it was self promotion, its not something that does not exists and people obviously are already confused.
I think the United States would object to .USA to be in conflict with the ccTLD .US but in any event the extension does not exist and the next application period in uncertain but will definitely not take place in 2017
I don’t see how that could be construed as self-promotion rather than just sounding the alarm about what whoever is behind that “project” is up to. Perhaps you got the wrong impression?
As for the rest, I certainly hope you are right about that. Would it not also be considered a country name and therefore against the rules to begin with? I would think and hope so.
I’m a very patriotic American personally, and I would love to see a .USA, absolutely love it, and hope it does happen some day – but not in the way some would like to see it. I’m also aware of at least one famous industry luminary who has mentioned it before, and he already has his great riches and success. It would be extremely unjust and unfair to those who have invested time, energy and life in .US, waiting and even trying for the “sleeping giant” to be woken since 2002, not to mention money, if it were not done the way things have been done with .UK for instance. .USA should be a ccTLD, not a gTLD, and all .USA domains should be reserved for those who already have the corresponding .US, to be registered for a period of time at their option, just like it has been done for .UK. Furthermore, they should be available for “reg fee,” no premiums that dramatically differ from the price of .US either. Does someone not like that? Was someone planning something different? Was someone planning to reap great riches from .USA regardless of impact upon .US and existing .US holders? That’s just wrong, plain and simple.
This means that each post must comply with the policy admin. policies must be obeyed, do not violate the rules. sorry if I’m wrong but that’s the truth
Your post does not make sense here.
There is a “.China” – in Chinese, which seems fairly practical as opposed to having it in English. That would be like having Cyrillic (Russian) characters for US, all joking aside (I realize that one might be a terrible example in the coming months).
Anyway, It is the IDN ccTLD operated by CNNIC – the same administrator as the .CN ccTLD: http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/xn--fiqs8s.html – It was delegated about 7 years ago.
CNNIC will be at the NamesCon next week if you are attending and wish to learn more from them.
Actually, there are two .china TLDs in Chinese — .中国 and .中國 — depending on whether you want simplified or traditional. They both mean “china”, they’re not abbreviations.
You’re right, I had put the Simplified one.
“China Ramps Up Control of Domain Names, Adds New Layer to Great Firewall”
rfa . org/english/news/china/internet-domain-01162017155356.html
If you want great names for China then buy .com and the matching .cn if if you can get it. You’re then selling a name with “brand protection” built in. Example: hualiche.com and .cn “gorgeous cars”. The other extensions are simply noise, at least at this point. Happy New Year Michael.
Google this “Chinese Love B”
What comes up? Buicks. Unless Buick has a model called the Hualiche, the noise is coming from “gorgeous” leeching off the major brand.
??? Huali is pinyin for gorgeous Che is pinyin for car. You understand that MingChe.com ” luxury car” sold for $2.5million and that’s just one example in the ” car space” of pinyin names. I don’t understand your comment at all.
The Chinese have a space program that’s different from the U.S. space program because in the Chinese space program Tang is one of the astronauts.
What?
I’m not sure if your information is right or the authorities have shown lenience towards the rule which you say prohibits country names from being registered as a TLD.
Yes, it might be a constituent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but according to the very first three words of is Wikipedia article, “Wales is a country…”
The .Wales domain went live for general availability in 2015.
The .Cymru TLD went live on the same day.
‘Cymru’ is the word ‘Wales’ in the Welsh language.
Both are administered by Nominet for very reasonable prices, but even so, I understand uptake has been slow – or, at least, bona fide use of these domains is very limited.
I’m pretty sure I’m correct with this figure that 93% of ALL Chinese domains are either.com or.cn and that leaves 7% for the rest of the extensions combined. Also what most don’t understand is that.cn actually has more regd names than.com but the same.com will always bring more money re it’s worldwide visibility.
.ASIA, delegated in 2007 (does that make it an “original gTLD” or a “legacy ngTLD”?), exists with 219,936 registrations today, so at least one non-ccTLD “place” TLD exists.
.XYX may have started 2016 as you claim (my records show 1.6 million registrations, not 1.8), but on July 1 it had 6,413,546 registrations and today only 6,025,560. It has lost registrations in each of the past 6 months.
Ken
.Asia was under obtained under the new gTLD program as you noted.
John
I didn’t know there was a .usa project and have no involvement nor interest.
ccTLD’s have to be 2 letters and correspond to the official designation as set by the UN I believe.
Which is how a small sinking island nation wound up with .TV