Talk:Generic top-level domain

message: What happened to .movie? I'm pretty sure it exists (or existed).
:No, there hasn't ever been a .movie TLD. --Zundark 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one or more of the alternative DNS systems, or Internet-keyword systems mimicking DNS for users with a plugin, may have had such a pseudo-TLD at some point (new.net?). *Dan T.* 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  .movie 

message: I'm seeing this advertised for sale by legit registrars.  What's the story with it?
:A .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)
thread_title:  .shop 

message: 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)
thread_title:  pro sponsored? 

message: what about .asn for associations?!
i.e. www.actu.asn.au, www.aigroup.asn.au
--218.215.131.237
:That's second-level, not top-level. --Zundark 15:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: .asn

message: What about .co.uk? as in http://www.bbc.co.uk/
--Nick Scratch 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's second-level, not top-level. --Zundark 22:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK 

message: 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)
replies: text: .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)
replies: text: I stand corrected. I thought I had searched through the article, but obviously I hadn't. Thanks. -- Jao 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  .rec 

message: 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)
thread_title:  .orb (orbit) - what happend? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  .bzh - Proposed for deletion 

message: http://www.pidgin.im  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.230.219 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a country code TLD (for the Isle of Man). So it's outside the scope of this article. --Zundark 21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  .im - Missing 

message: 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.
--ti 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually .edu is also specific, they have a contract with the US DoC, not with ICANN. The generic is a misnomer and in essence means not a ccTLD.  Some ccTLDs are also not based on "country codes", e.g., .eu.  You could end up with ccTLD = two letters, gTLD = anything else minus .arpa. <shrug /> --217.184.142.12 (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  .gov, .mil 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nobody supported this, and with (maybe) hundreds of new TLDs in 2010 it's a waste of time to optimize the articles for today's situation: merge tags removed. --212.82.251.86 (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd still say it might a good idea. There's not a lot on the sTLD article anyway. As long as we accept that sTLD's are a subset of gTLD's. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of sponsored TLD 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please read the existing text that covers the topic based on the original sources describing the program, which you should also read before reciting inaccurate and sensationalist blog references. This is also noted in the edit summaries. Kbrose (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to new gTLDs section 

message: 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)
replies: text:  IMHO no because copy-pasting of URLs is quite common. Anyway, there are romanizations for some scripts. --Beroal (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-latin script top domains 

message: 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)
replies: text: These group names are used very loosely often. Originally, arpa was just a *temporary* fix and classified as such, and not expected to survive, but when it did, all domains outside the country-code group were usually called generic, as no other specifically themed groups existed. So whether to include them here is a matter of historical taste. Kbrose (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean by 'generally', it's certainly USED a lot, by almost every host on the net, but no you can't register domains there. Use wasn't really the issue in calling them generic initially, just that they were not ccTLD. Whether arpa is 'generic' or not, isn't really of much interest to anyone, and officially IANA now designates it as 'infrastructure', like some other formerly generics now are called sponsored. I find it not terribly constructive, nor instructive, to have separate articles for all these types, but for too many WP editors disambiguation is everything down to splitting hair, and that seems to take priority over common sense and broad perspective. Kbrose (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infrastructure TLD 

message: In GeoTLD category .sco is correct or .scot? TruthPraiser (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  .sco or .scot 

message: 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)
replies: text: The term "grandfathering" refers to a pre-existing entity being exempted from requirements that are subsequently established and to which it would otherwise be subject. It is frequently encountered in the TLD industry. --Futhark|Talk 19:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See grandfather clause. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It isn't clear what it means to a general audience, even if it is frequently encountered in the TLD industry. A Terminology section should be explaining obscure terms, not introducing new ones, especially when, as here, the meaning is not self-evident. DavidCh0 (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandfathered 

message: If I'm not mistaken, .post was approved by ICANN in 2009? Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  .post 

message: "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)
thread_title:  gTLD 

message: Has anyone else heard about this new TLD? Iamahashtag (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have, it looks like it going ahead, the page may have to be edited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksalssome (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually own one (service.sucks). They are very expensive ($249/y) and to be honest I only keep it to send emails from the domain to companies I am having trouble with. Jeffery Thomas 16:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  .sucks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Promotional links on this page and promotional wikipedia pages for specific newgtlds.