Talk:Proposed top-level domain

Addition of .bud

Idea to share: http://new-web-domains.com/ is a not-for-profit site about new web domains. Has full lists of all domains by topic here: http://new-web-domains.com/tlds/new-generic-top-domain-names-the-basics/ How to include ? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchbeefy (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

New gTLD proposed for Budapest —Preceding unsigned comment added by LBStreamer (talk • contribs) 11:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition of .bank

Proposed by F-Secure (as slash-dotted) and further backed up (by F-Secure again). Could probably be added to this list as well as have its own article, as it smells like a reasonable idea, that might come to exist. --Morten Barklund ^{[ talk / contribs ]} 11:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A wee bit premature, as this is nowhere near even the ICANN proposal stage. If someone applies for .bank, then it should be added with the other proposed top-level domains at that point. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition of .shop

Proposed by Commercial Connect for ecommerce. —Ost (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge .bzh, .cym, .gal and .sco

There are four articles about proposals for language and culture-based domains: .bzh, .cym, .gal and .sco. They all share the same characteristics:

• They are inspired by the success of .cat.
• The status of ICANN's treatment of the proposal is not so clear.
• The sources for them are quite the same: A website with a petition and possible an article on a local news website, and ICANN documents, which passingly mention the proposals with very little substantial data.
• The proposals' websites mostly carry petition-like information. .gal's website looks like the most substantial one, as it appears to be backed by Galician government and not a small group of people, like all the rest.
• Their status as described in their respective {{Infobox Top level domain}} infoboxes is almost identical.

Based on all the above, i propose to merge them all into this article or maybe a new article with a name such as Proposed top-level domains for languages and cultures.

The current article names can stay as redirects. If and when these domains actually become registered or the campaigns for them become more notable they should become full articles.

Please correct me if i am wrong in the presentation of the above facts.

I'd be glad to hear any other opinions. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a certain possibility that the 30th International Public ICANN Meeting (L.A. 29 October - 2 November 2007) will shed some new light on these proposed domain, so i put the merge proposal on hold for a few days. --Amir E. Aharoni 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no objections, so i performed the merge. --Amir E. Aharoni 18:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge .kid and .kids

.kid and .kids are two very short stubs about proposed domains. Their status and purpose is similar and common sense suggests that at most one of them will ever be registered.

So i propose to merge them both into this article. When it becomes registered or the proposal(s) become(s) notable, it can become a separate article. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

.ga.ie

The .ga.ie entry should be removed. This page is about "proposed top-level domain" - but .ga.ie might better be discribed as a "proposed second-level domain". Not at all the same thing. Djegan (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

.qc

Somebody wants to do more research on sovereigntists' proposed TLD .qc for Quebec, Canada? CBC News article is a good start. 24.81.130.107 (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. 24.81.130.107 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored the section on .qc -- the proposal is for a .qc is for a domain for the Quebec "nation" and not for a country-level domain, though the two-letter suffix would probably only be given for a country-level domain. The proposal is of the same type as the others listed on this page, even though the proposers seem not to understand that they will not have a two-letter suffix for Quebec while it is part of Canada.Langhorner (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed patent nonsense again, only ISO 3166-1 country codes can get an alpha-2 code for a ccTLD, no other TLD can get it under ICANN and RFC 1591 rules. Nothing is wrong with wanting a TLD for Quebec, it just has to be longer than two letters. Nothing is wrong with wanting an independent country for Quebec, it would then presumably be recognized by the U.N., based on that it would get a country code (not necessarily QC), and with that country code it would be entitled to get a ccTLD as fast as 1-2-3, no need to propose it anywhere, let alone in Wikipedia. --217.184.142.59 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted unjustified removal of sourced information. Admittedly the proposal is unlikely to be approved with a two-letter top level domain, but the proposer is not a crackpot, he is a member of parliament in Quebec, and the proposal has been reported on in mainstream media. The proposal is as serious and verifiable as the others described on this page and should not be deleted without a consensus.Langhorner (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not only unlikely, it ignored the rules about ccTLDs. BTW, members of paliament can be ignorant like everybody else. Meanwhile he closed his petition, and linked the old page to the new Point Québec promoting a TLD .quebec. Looks like he read and understood RFC 1591, good for him. --217.184.142.53 (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

.lli

Hi,

I'm redirecting the new article .lli to Proposed top-level domain, as it has pretty much the same info as bzh, cym, sco etc. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Private TLDs

Unrestricted TLDs are, and should be named, private domain names that would allow organizations to use their own name in place of a .com or .net TLD. For example, a company like "Wigets" might have the .wigets domain for use as http ://services.wigets or http ://atlanta.bargins.wigets. This should be noted in this article. (I think the term "generic" is misleading.)172.165.37.62 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

These domains are no more or less private than any second-level or other level domain, as they are homed in the same DNS root as any other official TLD. Any com (for example) 2nd level domain is as private as the registrant wants it as the DNS is designed to convey domain administration autonomy when assignment is made. The term 'generic' is a historical term that has largely lost its distinct meaning it once had, and WP editors may be to blame for the confusion here. Kbrose (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

.gay

Why isn't it mentioned? I tried adding it, but I don't know how to properly work the tables. StarDust787 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Request from someone called GPDynamics

A while back, some random IP-user received this request:

I do not have experiance editing on Wikipedia. Would you be able to assist me in adding some content and refernce material related to the .XXX and .KID extension? I am starting to lobby Microsoft, Firefox and Google to account for exclusion/inclusion of these domains for users logged in. I feel that protecting children and young adults far outweighs any censorship argument.

I don't know how this "talk" works but I can be contacted via e-mail at [removed]@hotmail.com.

I would like to

1. Add [name of the person] as first proposing the .XXX and .KID TLD's

and

2. add reference to [his] original letter to ICANN: http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00852.html

Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

GPDynamics (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The above request was copied to here by 80.217.2.28 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

None of Dennis Hope's TLDs will be supported in the future

I believe in scientific claims about the future like "It's not likely that Earth will fall on Sun in a thousand years from now". But is the subject claim based on something? --Beroal (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Proposed top-level domain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224221551/http://www.dotsco.org/2008/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=2 to http://www.dotsco.org/2008/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018140253/http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ustld_27_jun_2012_mod_012.pdf to http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ustld_27_jun_2012_mod_012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061707/http://donuts.co/news/files/donuts_tld_application_list.pdf to http://donuts.co/news/files/donuts_tld_application_list.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dotcym.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318174242/http://www.puntulli.org/ to http://www.puntulli.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207111203/http://nai.nic-naa.net/ to http://nai.nic-naa.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

.internal

added ICANN proposal and request for feedback to the Top-level domain. Maybe it should be mentioned here (instead of there?). Please correct and maybe move or copy here if appropriate -- Schusch (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)