[NA-Discuss] "What's At Stake" gTLD conference - The City View

Thomas Lowenhaupt toml at communisphere.com
Fri Oct 21 18:43:45 UTC 2011


At this point there's a bum's rush to get cities online. (As well as 
everyone else, .lowenhaupt for only 500K 
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114753028665775786510/posts/BRupnoLpzqD> 
how can I resist!)

In the instance of New York City, there appears to have been little 
serious preparation for the process by city government 
<http://connectingnyc.org/tick-tock/>.  Yet hubris demands that Paris, 
Berlin, London... not get there before us.

The ICANN hasn't prepared cities for optimizing this Critical Internet 
Resource. Nor have the nation-states.

For city bureaucrats its been a hurry up and wait 
<http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hurry+up+and+wait> game that's been 
developed around the globe in 41 venues over 13 years, leaving the city 
off guard.  "We'll pay serious attention when the deadline arises." was 
the reasonable response I received from an overworked city bureaucrat 
last year. Events like "What's At Stake" provide one more reason to 
procrastinate - "Is it really happening?"

Now, with no time to think through the potentials - it took 3 years to 
put the Commissioners Plan of 1811 together that set up Manhattan's 
street grid - we should not be surprised when carelessness, chicanery, 
and cronyism result.

What's to be done?

I recently suggested to a leading registry operator that cities should 
be able to submit an "intention to file" along with the requisite check, 
enabling them to complete a baseline study 
<http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/from-darpa-to-carpa> and 
make optimum use of this critical Internet resource. "Can't be done. 
They'd need to make exceptions for everyone else. Unfair."

I know some on this list have expressed a "TLDs and cities, what a 
waste" attitude. And there are too many important issues for At-Large to 
give them all their due. And I sometimes suspect I'm the only list 
participant with city planning / operations / governance experience - if 
that's the case outreach is required (last I checked cities are home to 
more than 1/2 the human race.)

So let me make another plea: Please At-large, will you take a look at 
the situation with cities and TLDs? Will you help provide the time and 
structure so that a reasoned plan for city-TLDs can be developed? Will 
you help organize a study of the potentials of TLDs providing a digital 
grid for city resources?

We can blame city administrators, ICANN, GAC, and lots of others for the 
situation. But it's the city residents - the old, the young, the 
healthy, the weak - who will be the real losers if At-Large doesn't act. 
It's the At-Large that represents the cities and its residents at ICANN, 
not the GNSO.

It just seems so wasteful to allow this resource to be squandered.

I hope you find the resources to step-up on this issue.

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt

-----------------------------------------------
Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair
Connecting.nyc Inc.
tom at connectingnyc.org <mailto:tom at connectingnyc.org>
Jackson Hts., NYC 11372
718 639 4222
Blog <http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/blog/> - Wiki 
<http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/project-home> -Web 
<http://www.connectingnyc.org/>






On 10/20/2011 6:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> It's seeming highly likely that numerous issues -- notably the issue 
> of applicant support in developing countries -- may demand a 
> committment to multiple rounds. The ICANN Board committed at the last 
> meeting to establishing a fund -- and seeding that fund with $2M -- 
> for this purpose. Notwithstanding community (ie, GNSO, GAC and ALAC, 
> expressed through the JAS WG report) concerns about the validity of 
> this as an effective tactic, it exists as a commitment. And there is 
> no way on earth that an independent foundation to administer such a 
> fund could be enabled in time to form and have its personnel, 
> structure and funding ready for this winter's round. So one may 
> discern that event back in Singapore, the Board envisioned a 
> subsequent round while it enabled this one. Plenty of details and 
> community fedeback is left TBD, but the collective mindset of the 
> Board seemed clear. Timing? No clue. I'm quite happy with "it's ready 
> when it's ready", a theme that has driven most Internet innovation 
> these days. - Evan PS: Having worked deeply in the Linux community 
> during the height of Microsoft's intense opposition to anything open 
> source, I think I have a well developed sense of the difference 
> between FUD, legitimate concern and petty rumor-mongering. Little of 
> what we've seen here is FUD, and it's no surprise that different 
> advisors offer different advice. Indeed, these days I'm far more 
> concerned with reverse-FUD (ratings agencies saying everything is fine 
> when indeed there SHOULD be fear) than the original. On 20 October 
> 2011 17:10, Antony Van Couvering <avc at avc.vc> wrote:
>> FUD sucks and hurts everyone and there's far too much of it in this 
>> industry. On the other hand, ignoring reality isn't very helpful 
>> either. Looking at the realities of ICANN's processes, the studies 
>> that the GAC wants done *after* all new TLDs have been in operation 
>> for a while, etc. -- what do people here think is a reasonable 
>> estimate for when Round 2 happens? I'm asked by potential clients, 
>> "When will we see Round 2"? What should I answer? I don't say "now or 
>> never," but I do tell them I don't think we'll see a new round for at 
>> least a few years -- which is my honest best guess. Furthermore, if 
>> they have a common trademark like "United," a competing application 
>> from another "united" trademark holder is perfectly possible in this 
>> round. If they have a coined, unique name like "Xerox" then they can 
>> easily wait for Round 2 or 3 or whenever. So the impetus to apply in 
>> this round is different for different brand holders. Antony On Oct 
>> 20, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
>>> Bret I've been hearing the same thing from quite a few people - 
>>> including 
>> potential applicants for this round.
>>> Personally I'd hate to see the good and positive aspects of new Tlds 
>> being overshadowed by FUD being touted as "advice" by some of the new 
>> tld crowd
>>> Regards Michele Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel 
>>> <http://blacknight.tel/> Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity On 
>>> 20 Oct 2011, at 21:35, "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro> 
>> wrote:
>>>> I really liked the idea that ICANN announce now when it will have the 
>> next open application window as a way to take pressure off this 
>> round. The "now or never" idea that a lot of consultants and back-end 
>> registries are pitching is both factually wrong and, I think, 
>> detrimental to the process. Scaring people into operating Internet 
>> infrastructure won't be good for anyone, including the company that 
>> receives the delegation of something it wasn't really sure it wanted 
>> anyway. "Now or never" also will substantially increase the number of 
>> applications, which will complicate the evaluation and launch process.
>>>> I'd like to see ICANN announce now that it will open another 
>>>> application 
>> window in January, 2013. That would give the companies sitting on the 
>> fence comfort that they won't be left out, and we all will be able to 
>> see whether what comes out of this first round is worth emulating. My 
>> expectation is that after seeing what new TLDs really look like, with 
>> all of their complexities and expenses, some of the companies now 
>> thinking of how to do this will decide not to pursue it at all. For 
>> the undecided, I think it's better to watch and learn than to learn 
>> while operating a registry.
>>>> Bret On Oct 20, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>>>> Is anyone from NARALO going to this conference? 
>>>>> http://www.cadna.org/Whats-At-Stake/ It seems like a very useful 
>>>>> approach with which we might want to 
>> associate
>>>>> ourselves. Yes, much of it involves major brandholders scared by the 
>> influx
>>>>> of gTLDs, but it seems that there is much common ground between that 
>> group's
>>>>> skepticism about the program and that of ICANN At-Large. As one 
>>>>> example of how this may be interesting, apparently gTLD 
>> consultants
>>>>> are unwelcome at the event: 
>> http://domainincite.com/whats-at-stake-conference-bans-new-gtld-consultants/ 
>>
>>>>> ... boo hoo. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot 
>>>>> org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list 
>>>>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit 
>>>>> the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ 
>>>> ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit 
>>>> the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ 
>>> ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit 
>>> the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ 
>> ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the 
>> NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ 
> ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the 
> NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ 



More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list