This much is certain: a lot of mistakes have been made as far as the new gTLD launch process is concerned. What is the number one thing you would have done differently?
In my opinion (I still don’t understand why they didn’t do this), confusingly similar extensions shouldn’t have been allowed. I’m sorry but having a Dot Attorney, Dot Law, Dot Lawyer, Dot Esq and Dot Legal extension is ridiculous. They should have chosen one, let’s say Dot Law, and it would have been more than enough.
Let’s not even talk about singular + plural issues such as Dot Accountant vs. Dot Accountants.
End users will consider new gTLDs confusing enough as it is, add a bunch of confusingly similar extensions to the mix and needless to say, even Internet savvy individuals will be left scratching their heads.
For each niche/industry, one extension would have been more than enough in my opinion.
What about you, what’s the number one thing you would have done differently had someone put you “in charge” of the new gTLD launch process?
September 5th, 2014 at 11:55 pm
I probably would have learned from history and not introduced them in the first place. This is not a new idea. The gtld concept has been tried unsuccessfully before in 2001. Same chip, different dip.
Shame on icann for taking dumb sucker’s money. Shame on the applying registries for not doing any homework. Had they done any research at all, it would have been a no-brainer that the gtlds would have little end-user demand and would fail.