Why not a .service
Yes, why nota .service . Why not creating a gTLD for each kind of human or economic activities (especially economic).it is just a proposal.
a domain is not just a "promotional" domain or new fashion trends but maybe an information by itself. We are going for a semantic web where the important isn't the information but the knwoledge. so such meta information contained in domain name can be really useful. but we have to beware that such new addition needs a new definition of the management of gTLD.
.service can be used to create taxonomy of gtLD for economic activities for example .travel is a good case.
The next question with a several and huge pool pool of gTLD how the basic user can be aware to it.
Rafik
- rafikd's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Recategorized TLD's
One of the big problems with the .com name space is that it has become so overcrowded in recent years that it is now unusable. I think one of the reasons for this is due to an explosion of Web 2.0 type sites and domain registrations mainly in the social networking area.
I would propose that social networking sites all use a .social TLD and then be subcategorized, for example, muttnutt.dog or carenthusiasts.car or some variation of.
If we could convince registrants to use different TLD's as opposed to .com, this could alleviate the overcrowding of existing TLD's.
Yes Web2.0 raise a new
Yes Web2.0 raise a new demand fr new TLD. and I think that sub categorization is similar to idea of taxonomy. we will have unlimited possibilties!
the shift of .com to new gTLD will happen if important and main websites use other TLD than .com.
Rafik DAMMAK
ISOC-TN, IEEE-CS, IEEE-ComSoc, IEICE, IPSJ member
.soc
Usenet groups used alt. comp. misc. news. rec. sci. soc. as the major top-level categories (alternate, computing, miscellany, news, recreation, science, society respectively).
Perhaps the same convention should be followed if these are ever created as gTLD's? .soc is shorter than .society or .forum, important as adding a few characters to a TLD's name lengthens every full domain name in that TLD correspondingly.
It's less language-specific (for instance, «societé» fits .soc more easily as .society in my country).
Re: convention
I think it's very possible that these gTLDs could find plenty of people willing to pay to get domains under them, but just to pick you up on something that alot of people don't seem to realise -- it's not possible to have a "convention" with gTLDs because they are not created by any one's organisation's desire.
Unlike ccTLDs, where an international standard is used to define their creation, new gTLDs are created when someone applies for them, and each suggested top-level domain is then run through an application process.
Kieren
we can use the
we can use the categorization to create new gTLD ,not necessarily to be limited by convention or rules.
for example maybe I can with Carl apply for creation of such set of TLD. to define possible framework for generate new possible TLD.
we have to do the a whole process for each TLD to apply?
the process is shaped for one TLD application?
Rafik DAMMAK
ISOC-TN, IEEE-CS, IEEE-ComSoc, IEICE, IPSJ member
of course the idea of
of course the idea of categorization isn't new. and the example of Usenet is relevant.
Maybe to add second TLD to gTLD is better and more practical.
for example .family.soc and we can add n-TLD as we like.
Rafik DAMMAK
ISOC-TN, IEEE-CS, IEEE-ComSoc, IEICE, IPSJ member
.shop?
Why .service and not .shop? The latter could become anything from a workshop to a machine shop to the general store... and it's short and succinct.
.shop Application
The original application for .shop also contained two other gTLDs - One was .svc (service) and the other was .mall for a collection of .shop and .svc
I think that .shop is too
I think that .shop is too relied to goods selling. but .service can be a generic word for many activities from selling, banking insurance etc.
Rafik
ISOC-TN, IEEE-CS, IEEE-ComSoc, IEICE, IPSJ member
new .tld's?
The downfall of most of the new .tld's that have been created, such as .aero .museum .pro .travel, is due to a handful of obvious factors:
1) Cost. Why would a potential registrant pay $100/yr for titanic.travel or hindenberg.travel if any possible variant of titanic.com and hindenberg.de happened to still be available for under-$10?
2) Scope. The recent crop of .tld's is far too narrowly targeted. If .com is getting rather full, what's needed in a new .tld is something that overlaps all of .com - not just one very narrow field of specialised endeavour. Most would-be applicants to .com don't fit .aero .museum or another specialised .tld's; meanwhile existing airports and museums mostly already have their registered .com's or .org's which they'd prefer to leave unchanged.
3) Ease vs. difficulty of registration. Why go to all the effort to prove that you qualify to register example.travel if example-travel.com can be registered no-questions-asked in a matter of minutes? One can easily buy .com domains anywhere.
4) Ghettoisation. For instance, when an engineering firm decides whether to register as .com (or home ccTLD) instead of as *.eng.pro, odds are they're doing so knowing that other related businesses (manufacturers, builders, researchers, architects - depending on their field of practice) are in .com, their existing competitition is in .com, the people with whom they do business are in .com. They want to be in .com too instead of a new .tld that's unproven and relatively unknown.
If more .tld's are to be created, what's needed is not a .hotel or .taxicab but something that covers as broad a spectrum as .com does now. Possible candidates could be .corp .ltd .inc for legally-registered corporations - instead of choosing one subcategory of one business, create the new .tld or .tld's so that they can serve almost any business. And please, if .com is under-$10, don't make .inc cost a dozen times as much and have endlessly more hoops to jump through to qualify - or no one will use it.
Accurate analysis but let's look at the future
I think you're largely right, Carl. New TLDs largely suffered from the early dotcom boom concept that if it exists, people will come.
But there are several more complex factors here. For one, for whatever reason, the majority of people just aren't aware of domains beyond dotcom. There will come a turning point at which that changes - and no one will know what it will be, except for the fact it will almost certainly come when there are a larger number of gTLDs than there are now.
What is also different is that the dotcom registry has largely been eaten up. You can't find a usable dotcom anymore. What's more, because of the system agreed/created by Network Solutions, domains tasters make it nigh on impossible for an individual to get at any expiring decent domains. There may be a strong case for there being a maximum effective size of a TLD.
But the third and most exciting factor is that there are new opportunities out there that are not being catered for because the Net has changed, the way society interacts with it has changed, and the existing registries are still products created in the past.
So, for example, all gTLD registries still largely using the dotcom model. But a new registry could perhaps offer as a selling point greater registrant ownership over their domain (and cite the RegisterFly problem as a reason why this is good). Or they could offer domains for 99 years. Or they could provide registrants will free software.
This is all market differentiation, but it won't come until there is enough competition out there, until people are aware, and until enough bright business minds can be certain that their plans will get approved.
I think there is the potential for a very exciting expansion of the Internet just on the horizon.
Kieren
a maximum effective size for a TLD?
A few things could've been done to prevent the problems in finding good .com names, but there was (or is) no real will to do so.
For instance, the generic terms (dictionary words in any language) could've been handled differently when new .tld's are created. Instead of giving books.tld computers.tld encyclopedia.tld dictionary.tld and the like to the first entity that manages to register one, operate those specific key names in the dot.name-style format (where it's the third-level under them that's for sale). That way, every possible subdomain whatever.encyclopedia.tld doesn't end up under the control of one lucky registrant.
Another much-needed change is to place a hard limit on the number of names that can be registered to the same or related entities, or pointed at the same content on the same server. Domaintools finds one IP address with three million names pointed to it, including names (like godaddysucks.com) registered just to prevent others from using them. This needs to be addressed as net.abuse, with some means of revoking the duplicate registrations as soon as another potential registrant wants the name.
The registration of names for speculative resale also needs to stop. Some ccTLD's have cracked down on the practice, making the transfer of names between registrants more difficult. The gTLD's have done nothing, creating an environment that looks more like a ticket-scalping operation than a credible business. Sadly, many of those involved in operating linkspam-parking pages and "domain aftermarkets", the source of many of the problems, actually are ICANN-accredited registrars. This status can be used to give them more respectability than many deserve. The control of multiple registrars by related entities, used to get an unfair advantage in "drop catching" expired domains, also needs to be addressed.
If there weren't so many millions of domain names "parked" as one page of linkspam each, cybersquatted or created to build "portfolios" of names to be resold at usurious prices, we might not have any shortage of company .com names for new registrants. Much of the problem is an artificial one.
Unfortunately, if the registrars, the registries and ICANN itself get their money based only on the number of registrars accredited and the number of domains registered, any attempt to clean up the mess will have a price tag attached that they would prefer not to contemplate now.
Of course the business model
Of course the business model of new TLD is important. there are many good ideas never succeed!
Your remark about cost is important because the tld must be cheap due to the competition and in order to gain market share.
.service don't target a narrow sector as .aero or .museum because .service encompasses many economic activities and doesn't related to specialized or specific one. so it is really large scope.
the ease of registration is possible because anyone can make service (e.g freelance or even in second life!) .
even if there aren't a customer demand we have to create it .
the mistake is to create a so exotic TLD. I think that a good TLD has to be easy to memorize, much significant, really relevant and has a real adding value and least not last can fit a existing or possible demand.
your idea about legally-registered is interesting because it can be a way to build trust and customer confidence.
Maybe the issue is to create a large pool of TLD to respond to several and various needs.
finally, we are in the low-cost era so under 10$ is the only possibility to compete.
Rafik DAMMAK
ISOC-TN, IEEE-CS, IEEE-ComSoc, IEICE, IPSJ member
Apply for it
Hi Rafikd,
If you think there would be demand for a .service then there is nothing to stop you applying for it. This is something that I'm not sure people understand - ICANN doesn't draw up new gTLDs, it just responds to applications for new top-level domains.
The new liberalisation system will mean more gTLDs will be approved, so if you have a gTLD that you would like to see existing, then start putting together an application for it. What you will need to do is:
1. Review all the rules and guidelines coming out the ICANN process
2. Find a company with the technical expertise to run a top-level domain
3. Work extensively on a marketing and branding campaign for the new TLD - because that's where a TLD wins or fails.
Kieren
Thanks
Hi Kieren,
thanks for your comment.
I just posted this idea to explore if there is a real interest or it will be a new not used so much gTLD.
Please can you put the links related to the rules and guidelines coming out the ICANN process
Rafik DAMMAK
ISOC-TN, IEEE-CS, IEEE-ComSoc, IEICE, IPSJ member
Info and resources
Hi Rafik,
I have two URLs that are currently the best places to learn about the process. We will be putting together a simple run-through of the whole process as it gets closer to completion, so these are the best resources at the moment:
http://www.icann.org/processes/gnso/newtlds-details.html
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#gtld-draft-final-report
Kieren