[NA-Discuss] Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers

[Evan Leibovitch]

Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
> Top level domains (TLDs) like .com, .org, .edu, and .gov are crucial
> markers in our online world, but there are not enough of them to
> distinguish the various ways in which we interact on the web. One of
> the clearest, most pressing requirements is for TLDs that serve the
> needs of cities.
Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but I'm curious to know why cities
-- arbitrary political boundaries -- constitute the "most pressing" need
for TLDs.

I heard the same case being put forward by proponents at the GeoTLD
workshop in San Juan and was completely underwhelmed by the logic. While
I am certainly in favour of a far more open approach to TLDs, I am
unimpressed by most claims of greater urgency / relevancy / importance.

(I really wish they wouldn't call these staged presentations
"workshops"....)

> The far more challenging task is to develop .nyc as an organizing
> force to empower New York City's residents, institutions, and
> businesses to better connect with one another and the world.
>
Please help me understand the logic behind this. A TLD is but a naming
convention; I don't understand how this plays such a pivotal role in
empowering anyone to communicate better.

As a tool of civic pride and collective ego I understand the call for
.nyc, and there's no shame in putting that forward in the rationale. But
I've yet to see the logic that links *any* gTLD to a _necessary_
underpinning of societal connectivity.

As an example, I'd like to know -- specifically -- what could be
accomplished by .nyc that could not be done using .nyc.us . Of course,
".nyc.us" is already owned by a squatter, which means...

Maybe the _real_ need is for a .city TLD, whose second level names could
only be allocated to governments or orgs associated with incorporated
municipalities. Then the barriers to entry would not be so great for
cities such as New Delhi and Sao Paulo, which surely have the population
and communications needs of New York but not the wealth.

And we haven't even touched on who, in any city, should have the
"rights" to the city's TLD. As in the case of .berlin or .nyc, is it
simply the first organized group that asks for it? (Isn't that kind of
wild-west first-come-first-served approach part of the reason for the
chaos in .com?)

Must it be non-profit (and if so, why)? Or should it be the appropriate
municipal governments (and ultimately have its own subgroup policies
like ccTLDs)? What is fair? What is of most value to each city's many
stakeholders and to the public at large?

Left uncontrolled I see a widespread rollout of city-based TLDs as a
hodgepodge of governments, nonprofits, conventional media outlets (ie,
toronto.com) and "yellow pages" style commercial directory services.
Some will be trustworthy, some not... how will the public benefit from
this in the long term in a manner that is significantly better than the
status quo?

I note a related page on ICANNWiki,
http://icannwiki.org/GeoTLDs_-_Categories , about the many various
categorizations that are possible. Are all suitable? Should ICANN just
adopt a first-come, first-served approach to GeoTLDs, or approach it
with some sense of vision that balances diversity and stability?

Perhaps ICANN ought to better have its act together on GeoTLDs before
steamrolling ahead on them, at very least acknowledging different public
needs from GeoTLDs compared to ccTLDs and gTLDs. I note .asia already
with us -- how many more will be created before anyone notices that the
public is poorly served by the complete lack of vision -- let alone
suitable policy -- in this area?

(Of course, it's possible that policy exists but that I'm not aware of
it, in which case I apologize. One would hope that a half-hour of
searching the net would offer at least something from a supposedly
transparent organization. Right very little shows up when searching on
these terms.)

- Evan