.CAMP was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 April 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Generic top-level domain. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
.BUILDERS was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 April 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Generic top-level domain. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
A news item involving Generic top-level domain was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 June 2011. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Why is this one not included?
I think that most of gTLD marked as not operational should not be listed. Most of them are only proposal, never (or not yet) approved) -- Cate 13:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
What happened to .movie? I'm pretty sure it exists (or existed).
.movie
TLD. --Zundark 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)I'm seeing this advertised for sale by legit registrars. What's the story with it?
.shop
TLD was proposed some years ago, but nothing ever came of it. Perhaps those registrars aren't as legit as you think. --Zundark 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)I think this page needs a big overhaul, but I'm reluctant to undertake it before explaining why and hearing some feedback.
Generic TLDs are a subset of TLDs in which registrants are not required to meet any particular eligibility requirements pertinent to the suffix. This article confuses the distinction, as if any non country code TLD is a generic TLD.
Dot-com registrations were subject to screening until September 12, 1995 when Amendment 4 to the Cooperative Agreement between NSF and NSI instantiated a $100 fee for a two year registration. Dot-net and dot-org were added to the new regime that December.
Legacy TLDs such dot-mil, dot-gov and dot-edu have never been opened up as generic TLDs, and neither have most of the TLDs added under ICANN. The only new ones are dot-biz and dot-info.
I think that .pro isn't sponsored domain like you can see on this page. See: http://www.icann.org/tlds/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.219.27.226 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
You are correct. .pro is not a "sponsored" domain, and it's policies are under the control of ICANN, subject to the registry agreement. Many think it is sponsored because it is a very "restricted" gTLD, as was .name when it was first introduced. Mbeatty 03:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
what about .asn for associations?!
i.e. www.actu.asn.au, www.aigroup.asn.au
--218.215.131.237
What about .co.uk? as in http://www.bbc.co.uk/ --Nick Scratch 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Anything .uk is also not a "generic" top level, but a country code domain.Mbeatty 03:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Have I just dreamt up there being a proposal for .rec? Maybe there was but it got turned down? And if so, should the article make mention of such cases (like .shop, mentioned above on this talk page)? -- Jao 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
.rec
was one of the seven TLDs proposed by the IAHC in 1997. This is already mentioned in the article (though for some reason it's not mentioned in the IAHC article). --Zundark 14:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Swedish computer magazine Computer Sweden reported sometime in the 1990's about a proposed .orb top domain meant for satellites and other objects in orbit. Does anyone know anything about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.53.80 (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I am proposing the article .bzh for deletion. Please see Talk:.bzh for explanation. Your input is welcome. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
http://www.pidgin.im —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.230.219 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
how are they generic ? they are specific to the US, arent they?! atleast some mention of how this is a misnomer must be made in the article.
The Sponsored top-level domains are by definition a proper subset of the gTLDs, adding a flag sponsored or similar to the table here suffices to indicate the status, the fine print is anyway discussed in the individual TLD articles. --217.184.142.12 (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Kbrose, I'm wondering your justification for removing the section of text for the new gTLD changes? --Dan LeveilleTALK 21:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Owing to the decision at ICANN yesterday, there will soon be need for a new section here and at Top-level domain about TLDs written in non-latin alphabets - they will likely be both of the generic and non-generic kind. No doubt there will be quite some of them; already last year ICANN gave up its policy that there must be only a small, restricted list of non-national top domains. So in ten years we may likely have lots of top domains relatiing to different cities, churches, business sectors and interests. Would be interesting to hear what the first new top domains will be, and how it will affect the structure of the web. For one thing, won't this create new demands on the capacity of web browsers, web servers and keyboards, if you're native to one language but want to be able to visit or direct at web addresses written in another script, without necessarily copy-pasting the URL? /Strausszek (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this part of gTLDs?
I see name of .arpa in gTLD domains table in bottom of gTLD article. TruthPraiser (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Kbrose , but this TLD not used generally such as other gTLDs. TruthPraiser (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh , i understand it now , thanks for your help. TruthPraiser (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
In GeoTLD category .sco is correct or .scot? TruthPraiser (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of showing up my ignorance, what is "grandfathered"? I've asked seven software colleagues what it means and they shrug and tell me it must be an Americanism. Cuirmichael (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, .post was approved by ICANN in 2009?[1] Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
"On June 20, 2011 ICANN's board voted to end most restrictions on the allowed generic top-level domain (gTLD) suffixes from the 22 currently available extensions (such as .com, .gov, .edu, etc)." Makes it sound as though now, for example, anyone can register a .gov address. Is this true, or should this be re-worded? --Shanedidona (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone else heard about this new TLD? Iamahashtag (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I just removed 4 external links from this page that only mentioned .camp and .builders - both owned by donuts inc - and replaced them with links to the ICANN pages for newGTLDs. I have also noticed wikipedia pages for .london and many other newgtlds that should all probably be merged. Jeffery Thomas 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)