barcoded-NYC.0.JPGJackson Hts., New York, November 16, 2012 - On April 19, 2001 Queens Community Board 3, a local planning agency of the City of New York, passed an Internet Empowerment Resolution calling for the acquisition and development of the .nyc TLD as a public interest resource (it’s like .com, .org, .edu and .gov but just for New York City).

Last night, 11 years later, on the eve of that resolution’s fruition, and with 38 other global cities following the city’s lead - .paris, .london, .tokyo, .barcelona, etc., the board passed another resolution supportive of the original saying in essence: “Hey, we started this thing. Don’t forget us.”

The new resolution calls for City Hall to activate and fund a promised .nyc Community Advisory Board and assure that good domain names - those that are short, descriptive and memorable - are provided to the “city’s neighborhoods, community organizations, not-for-profit institutions, and local small businesses.” It also called for the city to coordinate the development of the.nyc TLD with the 38 other global cities, and it requested that a process be developed for recycling domain names that would assure their availability for future generations. The resolution:


A Resolution in Support of the .nyc Top Level Domain

- by Queens Community Board 3, the City of New York, November 15, 2012 -

Whereas, on April 19, 2001 Queens Community Board 3 passed an Internet Empowerment Resolution calling for the acquisition and development of the .nyc Top Level Domain (TLD) as a public interest resource, and

Whereas, the City of New York submitted an application to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for the .nyc TLD on June 12, 2012, and

Whereas, the City of New York plans to create a Community Advisory Board to “encourage meaningful input into the development of the .nyc strategy” and

Whereas, 38 other cities have followed New York City’s initiative and applied for their TLDs,

Queens Community Board 3 hereby endorses the following resolution:

We congratulate Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council for filing an application for the .nyc TLD.

To contribute to its success, Community Board 3 recommends:

  • that the .nyc TLD’s Community Advisory Board take a careful view of this most important resource, and that it be provided with adequate resources to assure its effective operation.
  • that Community Boards, civic organizations, not-for-profit entities, and local small businesses be represented on the Community Advisory Board.
  • that domain names that support civic life should be thoughtfully reserved for use by the city’s neighborhoods, community organizations, not-for-profit institutions, and local small businesses.
  • that civic not-for-profit organizations, and small businesses be provided with adequate notification of domain name selection periods, and the opportunity to select a good domain name.
  • that the city carefully coordinate the development of its Top Level Domain with the other cities that have applied for their TLDs, seeking opportunities for standardization and the sharing of good TLD governance practices.
  • that a plan be formulated to assure that the .nyc TLD is a sustainable resource: that domain names are recycled so they are available to New Yorkers today and tomorrow.

ICANN-45-Toronto-logo.png

Toronto, Canada, October 22, 2012 - The recently concluded ICANN meeting in Toronto provided several opportunities to advance the development of the .nyc TLD. Connecting.nyc Inc.’s Tom Lowenhaupt attended the meeting and reports that three CnI initiatives might have a positive impact on the New York and other city TLDs.

  • A project is afoot to engage with Internet Society chapters in 17 cities that have applied for TLDs - Aub Dhabi, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Brussels, Budapest, Doha, Helsinki, London, Madrid, Melbourne, New York City, Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Taipei, and Tokyo - with two goals in mind. The first is to provide public engagement assistance and policy guidance to the applicant cities. The second is to provide a platform for the 17 cities to share best practices. Additionally, it is hoped that Internet Society chapter membership might expand.  

  • On Sunday, October 14, 2012, ICANN’s new president, Fadi Chehade, addressed the At-Large Advisory Committee and stated that its efforts to engage individual internet users in the ICANN governance process is enabled ICANN to be more than a trade association. On Tuesday, October 16, we presented to the At-Large Outreach Subcommittee a path to engage individual internet users from the TLD applicant cities in the ICANN’s governance processes. Our proposal focused on the 39 cities (17 with ISOC chapters, 21 without) that have applied for city TLDs. With a combined population of about 175,000,000, we advocated fora campaign to engage individual internet users in these cities through the development of the “AtLarge.city” domains, for example, AtLarge.AbuDhabi, AtLarge.paris, AtLarge.nyc, … These domains provide an opportunity to create common channels for engagement in the ICANN processes. Our proposal was well received and we have begun working with the Outreach Subcommittee. Note: there may be some cross pollination with this and the previously mentioned Internet Society endeavor. 

  • Finally, Connecting.nyc Inc. applied to be a formal part of the ICANN’s At-Large Structure. Our expectation is that with its approval, we will formalize the role we’ve played with ICANN for the past 6 years, providing a channel to facilitate New Yorkers’ engagement with the ICANN’s processes. See At-Large for developments.

Beyond our initiatives, it was a typical ICANN extravaganza: more than 100 meetings spread out over 10 days (see schedule here). The meeting was “officially” summarized in this 15 minute video with ICANN Chair Steve Crocker and President Fadi Chehade. One of the more interesting developments was the MyICANN.org site with a well designed filter. ICANN’s next meeting is in April in Beijing.

Learn more about The Campaign for .nyc on our wiki pages.

Filed October 22nd, 2012 under Internet Society, At Large, City-TLDs, ICANN

CAB-October-meeting.0.png

Jackson Hts., NY, October 3, 2012 - We’ve scheduled a first discussion about an effective governance model for the .nyc TLD for Thursday, from 10 to 11 AM. While the city’s signing a contractor agreement to operate and market the TLD has limited the city’s oversight options, there are a number of open issues, e.g., the name set-asides for civic and government domain names. As well, over the life of the TLD, changing circumstances will best be addressed with broad public input.

Following up on earlier statements about engaging the public in developing plans for the .nyc TLD, the city announced some initial steps for public engagement steps in its Digital Roadmap,

“…the City of New York will establish a community advisory board and convene public listening sessions to encourage meaningful input into the development of the .nyc strategy.” 

Our initial thoughts on the proper structure for the community advisory board (CAB) were presented in a recent wiki post, which said about CAB membership:

“Reflecting the multistakeholder model, CAB members should be selected by government (the city council and mayor), business, and civil society.”

Some have suggested that the Multistakeholder model is flawed, placing it outside the scope of democracy’s evolution. The following is adopted from writings of Parminder Jeet Singh of ITforChange, and describes the stages of that evolution.

  • Version 1.0 was when elected officials assumed full authority to legislate and execute, once they were elected, without any reliance on any auxiliary democratic processes of public consultations. Ministries were steeped in deep secrecy and considerable aloofness from the public.
  • Version 2.0 begun when elected officials started to employ some processes of democracy beyond elections, like undertaking public consultation on various legislative proposals, stakeholder consultations with those directly affected by any governmental measure, forming ad hoc or standing committees with civil society and outside expert participation, instituting right to information legislation  etc….. However, at this stage, public participation was still largely ad hoc, mostly on the terms of the government, and largely not institutionalized.
  • Version 3.0 of democracy … is about strong institutionalization of means and processes of participation (outside of elections) in an ongoing manner, whereby the agenda of such participation can be set with a greatly curtailed influence of the government, if any, the processes are largely out of control of governments… It is independently institutionalized, funded, legitimized, etc. However, there is never a doubt that actual policy making authority remains with representative democratic bodies… There has always to be sufficiently clear difference between institutions of participation, while they have to made as strong and inclusive as possible,  and those of legislation and execution.

Thursday’s discussion will begin a search for an appropriate model for New York’s TLD. [Sorry if you missed the discussion. See this wiki post to see the follow up.] (Commons graphic courtesy of avistadecerdo.)

Learn more about The Campaign for .nyc on our wiki pages.

Filed October 2nd, 2012 under Domain Name, City-TLDs, Civics, Governance

apple-and-orange.jpgJackson Hts., New York, September 14, 2012 - With the 2013 election for mayor and city council 14 months away, civic watchdogs have started identifying issues that will help voters decide those candidate names worth a click (e.g.).

To date the .nyc TLD has been viewed as arcane, complex, and difficult to grasp, with benefits that could be achieved by other means. But with 38 other cities having submitted TLD application this past June, and the probability that all global cities will acquire their TLDs in the coming years, it’s becoming increasingly clear that New York no longer competes with Jersey City and Stanford; and that in a global marketplace, and in a digital age, how we use our TLD could be a defining factor in our city’s future. 

So here we offer 10 reasons the .nyc Top Level Domain’s development should be a factor in making those 2013 election clicks. The first several contrast effective and weak uses of city TLDs, making clear .nyc’s importance in enabling New York to remain a leading global city. So…

  • imagine .Paris optimizes its premier domain names, for example, creating a fashion.paris that guides visitors to that city’s fashion sector. And that New York City sells fashion.nyc to the highest bidder, say Macy’s. Which city has the Fashion advantage? Or,
  • imagine visiting .Istanbul and entering english.Istambul and finding a curated guide to everything you need. And that turkish.nyc takes you to a hookah in Astoria. Which is a more visitor friendly city? Next,
  • imagine .Paris issues domain names for city street to entities that are required to provide several layers of information. So for example, when someone enters Champs-Elysees into a search engine, or directly type in Champs-Elysees.paris, a page with a map linked to retail and other establishments on that boulevard is presented. And that in New York GreenwichAvenue.nyc remains undeveloped with a message saying “Want to buy this page?” And,
  • imagine .Milano institutes a thorough Internet of Things protocol, giving a domain name to every place and object in the city (in addition to people, ideas, and organizations). And that the resulting digital infrastructure provide operational efficiencies for city government; and they enable programmers to use these digital shortcuts for new media ventures. So imagine a developer dragging all the parking.milano domain names into an app that facilitates shopping. But that New York has sold off its library of “directory names” without civic content and accessibility responsibilities. Then,
  • imagine search.barcelona as a curated collaborative resource that provides residents and visitors with accurate and timely information about that city. And that search.nyc is owned by Microsoft and subject to the competitive forces of the search market. Finally,
  • imagine that 20 years down the road we’ve run out of good .nyc domain names - those that are short, descriptive, and memorable. That pricing policy dictating minimal annual renewal fees encourages the inefficient use of these limited resources. But that .Amsterdam has high renewal fees dedicated to Net education; that these higher fees encourage resource optimization, with a turnover in names that empowers future generations, and thereby creating a sustainable .Amsterdam TLD. Woe be to us.

And beyond these global considerations, a thoughtfully planned and equitably developed TLD will impact residents’ quality of life.

  • Imagine that neighborhood domain names are allocated under terms that require that they be used to serve the residents of their respective neighborhoods. Assuring that the Corona.nyc address serves the civic, resident, and business needs of that neighborhood’s 55,000 residents, rather than those of the global beer conglomerate.
  • Imagine Voter.nyc as as place where money doesn’t matter. Where candidates for public office present their case for office, robust discussion takes place, and our city’s Netizens vote candidate ideas up or down.
  • Imagine a regional city unencumbered by today’s plethora of governance structures - 800 within the 90 mile radius of the Empire State Building - simplifying and reducing institutional barriers to business and the cost of government.
  • Finally,  when dog owners are issued their fido.dog.nyc domain name along with their dog license, New York City will have disproved the adage “no one knows you’re a dog on the Internet,” optimized the .nyc TLD, and secured our transition into a digital era.  :)

So if we’re talking about our city’s competitive position amongst global cities, and a digital infrastructure capable of providing an increasingly livable city, how we develop our TLD is an important issue for the 2013 election. And candidates for office should declare  their vision for the .nyc TLD in name allocation, pricing, governance, and access. (Creative Commons image courtesy of dimland.blogspot.com.)

news-nyc-color.jpgJackson Hts., New York, April 28 2012 - One of the important domain names that will arrive with the activation of the .nyc TLD is NEWS.NYC. How is that name going to be assigned? Will it be auctioned off to the highest bidder or carefully assigned via a tender offer? Are there responsibilities that come with its assignment? How will its success be affected by the broader scope of the TLD’s operation? Will it be a traditional news operation or collaborative news? Will if offer just “news” or something more dynamic, e.g., news, reactions, and actions? What news will be presented and how will it be organized? What’s the decision making process in assigning priority to posted information? How will it be assembled and edited? What’s the business model? How is the information licensed?

Answers to questions like these will clarify how NEWS.NYC and the .nyc TLD can best serve our city. We’ve begun a conversation about these questions at a variety of locations with background and responses consolidated on our “A Tale of Two Cities” wiki page. Join in. (Commons image courtesy of Patti.)

Learn more about The Campaign for .nyc on our wiki pages.

rod-bergstoms-scream.jpgUPDATE: See details on the city’s application for the .nyc TLD as submitted to ICANN and its contract with vendor NeuStar here.

Jackson Hts., New York, March 23, 2012 - Below are the rough notes from my visit to DoITT’s office yesterday, March 22, 2012. Apologies for the lack of detail, but I was not provided with a copy of the document and was forbidden by city officials from using any recording devices, e.g., taking a picture of the pages with my cell phone. See details on this here.

The city’s Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT) held a “public hearing” on the proposed contract today. See my written statement here.

[Note: The city’s “transparency period” ended on March 23 and City Hall’s door has slammed shut without any meaningful public engagement on the TLD development process. And the city’s application for the .nyc TLD will be submitted on April 12 without having received any meaningful public review. This sad situation is reflected in an imagined response of ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom upon learning of the lack of public review.]

Editors Note: This report was originally made by CnI’s director, Thomas Lowenhaupt, based on  a brief viewing of city documents. With the arrival of a copy of some of the documents, we’ve provided this link to a more complete report on the .nyc TLD documents.

(Image of  ICANN’s CEO Rod Beckstrom reacting to practices that enabled cities to enter the complex realm of the TLD sans guidance.)

Learn more about The Campaign for .nyc on our wiki pages.

notes-from-DoITT-visit-on-NeuStar-contract-b.jpgJackson Hts., New York, March 22, 2012 - I’ve got to start with a gripe. I was forced to spend the morning at DoITT’s office at 75 Park Place looking at the parts of the proposed contract for the .nyc TLD that have been completed. Forced because they refused to email me a copy. Also, I was forced to make hand notes - see picture - because they wouldn’t allow me to take pictures with my cell. Why? It’s a draft document and not complete. (Perhaps a reason they shouldn’t be having a hearing on a incomplete document!)

Separately I was informed that the one public hearing - Friday, 2 PM at 2 Metrotech Center, 4th Floor, Brooklyn - meets the letter of the law, and that’s probably true. But clearly it’s not the spirit of the law. It’s an odious situation. And with the mayor and his staff quoted in this morning’s New York Times as saying he’s opposed to the “daily referendum” of social media and that people should focus on long term planning - OMFG.

OK, got that off my chest. So what did I learn from my 2 hours at DoITT? I can say I was at some points pleased, for example, in its handling of the Nexus question. But even here close scrutiny is required and was not possible as I was relegated to a noise lunchroom to view the materials. (OK, last gripe, promise.)

But vital pieces had not yet been completed, for example, Appendixes F and G dealing with reserved domain names. G deals with “names reserved for marketing and business development.” Is that the neighborhood names? How is it possible to testify on that?

I didn’t see anything about creating a sustainable TLD. There was nothing about how the funds, from auctions of some names, were to be used: to help small business? for education/training? moderate the digital divide? - not a word. At least none that I was able to find in the lunch room. (Fact, not gripe.)

I asked about the contract development process: Was an independent industry expert brought in to advise the city? No. So apparently the proposed contractor, and the overworked city employee drafting the contract, worked out (or rather, are working out) the details.

I’ll be in Brooklyn tomorrow at the “public hearing” (first announced on the last page of Tuesday’s City Record, an arcane insider paper). Hope to see some supporters of good government and long term planning at 2 Metrotech Center, 4th Floor, at 2 PM tomorrow. The A,C, F, and R trains will take you there.

UPDATE: See details on the city’s application for the .nyc TLD as submitted to ICANN and its contract with vendor NeuStar here.

Learn more about The Campaign for .nyc on our wiki pages.

City-Hall.JPG Jackson Hts., New York, March 15, 2012 - With city government having decided to submit an application for the .nyc TLD without any prior public consultation - either by the administration or the city council - the below looks at 2 of the 50 questions it will be answering in that application, and raises some questions. (See the New TLD Guidebook for all 50 questions.) 

A city official has stated,

“Once the City is awarded [.nyc], we’ll fully develop all applicable policies concerning name acquisition on the TLD. We plan to gather feedback from stakeholders across the city as part of that process.”

So here we offer a helping hand, examining two of the questions it must answer [ with our questions and thoughts in brackets ]. As you’ll see, the answers to ICANN’s questions will frame our city’s digital existence. We’re keeping our fingers crossed and hoping that effective outreach is ultimately conducted and that answers submitted in April do not bind the city to a digital doghouse.

 #18. Mission/Purpose

18. (a) Describe the mission/purpose of your proposed gTLD [ This is the pivotal question, is it: To improve the quality of life for residents? To create a robust business climate? To facilitate improved delivery of government services? To create a more programmer-friendly city? To facilitate civic communication? To enable the creation of a self governing culture using the latest digital tools? To foster local Net businesses and keep Internet revenue here? To raise money by selling domain names? … ]

(b) How do you expect that your proposed gTLD will benefit registrants [ people who acquire a .nyc domain name ], Internet users [ everyone and anyone using the Internet ], and others [ non-Internet users, tourists, pedestrians, bikers, etc. ]? Answers should address the following points:

i. What is the goal of your proposed gTLD in terms of areas of specialty, service levels, or reputation? [ Answers here depend on the response to #18. (a) - Mission/Purpose. But one answer might be “To create a trusted digital space where the people of the world feel they can safely conduct business.” ]

ii. What do you anticipate your proposed gTLD will add to the current space, in terms of competition, differentiation, or innovation? [ Will it put us on a par or exceed the offerings of other global cities? Are there privacy or security offerings that will make .nyc a trusted TLD, where businesses will move to from a wild and insecure .com world? ]

iii. What goals does your proposed gTLD have in terms of user experience? [ For example, are help and emergency buttons going to be provided and required - 311 and 911? Will it embrace the Internet of Things, and create a pedestrian-friendly city? Will it have public spaces such as the parks, streets, and sidewalks in the traditional city? ]

iv. Provide a complete description of the applicant’s intended registration policies in support of the goals listed above. [ How is this question answered if public outreach is to be done after submitting the application? ]

v. Will your proposed gTLD impose any measures for protecting the privacy or confidential information of registrants or users? If so, please describe any such  measures. [ Are there measures to facilitate anonymous but responsible speech? And what about security? ]

vi. Describe whether and in what ways outreach and communications will help to achieve your projected benefits. [ We’d hope to see an answer pointing to our city’s democratic ideals and an intent to fully explore the potentials of a city-TLD, educate the public as to the options, and use consensus tools to set a policy and path. ]

(c) What operating rules will you adopt to eliminate or minimize social costs (e.g., time or financial resource costs, as well as various types of consumer vulnerabilities)? [ Will the city’s Consumer Affairs Department work to protect the registrants of .nyc domain names? ] What other steps will you take to minimize negative consequences/costs imposed upon consumers?  [ Will the city encourage the development of free or inexpensive 3rd level domain names for civic organizations, schools, churches, local businesses? ] Answers should address the following points:

i. How will multiple applications for a particular domain name be resolved, for example, by auction or on a first-come/ firstserve basis? [ So party #1 wants news.nyc for a collaborative news service to which New Yorkers contribute on a peer-rated basis. And party #2 wants news.nyc as an outlet for Associated Press and New Corporation stories. What is the process for deciding? ]  Or [ Party #1 wants Corona.nyc to build a collaborative publishing and decision making hub serving the 55,000 residents of the Corona neighborhood. And party #2 wants Corona.nyc to help it sell beer. What is the process for deciding? ]

ii. Explain any cost benefits for registrants you intend to implement (e.g., advantageous pricing, introductory discounts, bulk registration discounts).[ Do civic organizations, neighborhoods, schools, and churches pay the same rate as multinational corporations? Will there be free third level civic domain names, e.g., fix-that-light.civic.nyc? What about subsidized domain names that facilitate electoral speech? ]

iii. Note that the Registry Agreement requires that registrars [ registrars are the retailers of domain names, for example, GoDaddy.com ] be offered the option to obtain initial domain name registrations for periods of one to ten years at the discretion of the registrar, but no greater than ten years. Additionally, the Registry Agreement requires advance written notice of price increases. Do you intend to make contractual commitments to registrants regarding the magnitude of price escalation? [ So can GoDaddy.com sell a name for a discounted $9.99 and raise the price to $99.99 in year 2? ] If so, please describe your plans.

#20.

20. (a) Provide the name and full description of the community that the applicant is committing to serve. … The name of the community does not have to be formally adopted for the application to be designated as community-based. [ Does .nyc serve just the five boroughs or is it a force for regionalization? See our Regional Consolidation and Nexus pages on this.]

Descriptions should include: • How the community is delineated from Internet users generally. [ Is the .nyc TLD a rallying point for the New York City community, as a civic entity focused on the creation of a more livable city? ] Such descriptions may include, but are not limited to, the following: membership, registration, or licensing processes, operation in a particular industry, use of a language. • How the community is structured and organized. For a community consisting of an alliance of groups, details about the constituent parts are required. • When the community was established, including the date(s) of formal organization, if any, as well as a description of community activities to date. • The current estimated size of the community, both as to membership and geographic extent.

(b) Explain the applicant’s relationship to the community identified in #20(a) [ This a very revealing question as it shows that ICANN thinks there’s little difference between .paris, .newyork, and .banjo or .car ] .

Explanations should clearly state: • Relations to any community organizations. • Relations to the community and its constituent parts/groups. • Accountability mechanisms of the applicant to the community.

(c) Provide a description of the community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD.  [ Dear ICANN, we’ve not spoken to the community yet. We’ll get back to you on this. Sincerely, The City of New York. ]

Descriptions should include: • Intended registrants in the TLD. [ Residents, small businesses, anybody with the cash? ] • Intended end-users of the TLD. • Related activities the applicant has carried out or intends to carry out in service of this purpose. [ With the “intends” there the city can provide an extended answer to this question, I suppose. ] • Explanation of how the purpose is of a lasting nature. [ Will the city “recycle” names and make good names available for generations to come? See our page on a sustainable TLD for some insight on this one. ]

(d) Explain the relationship between the applied for gTLD string and the community identified in #20(a). [ If it’s .nyc, will there be a New York State sponsored TLD servicing the likes of NiagraFalls.newyork? Casinos.newyork? ]

Explanations should clearly state: • relationship to the established name, if any, of the community. • relationship to the identification of community members. • any connotations the string may have beyond the community.

(e) Provide a complete description of the applicant’s intended registration policies in support of the community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. Policies and enforcement mechanisms are expected to constitute a coherent set. [ Based on the Mission/Purpose ]

Descriptions should include proposed policies, if any, on the following: • Eligibility: who is eligible to register a second-level name in the gTLD, and how will eligibility be determined. [ See our Nexus page for background. ] • Name selection: what types of second-level names may be registered in the gTLD. • Content/Use: what restrictions, if any, the registry operator will impose on how a registrant may use its registered name. [ Can a .nyc domain name serve as the basis of a non-New York business? If a business, must it follow New York’s Consumer laws? ] • Enforcement: what investigation practices and mechanisms exist to enforce the policies above, what resources are allocated for enforcement, and what appeal mechanisms are available to registrants. [ Will the city’s existing agencies be tied into the operation of the .nyc TLD? ]

Learn more about The Campaign for .nyc on our wiki pages.

Wales-culture-shakedown.jpg

Jackson Hts., New York, February 20, 2012 - With the April 12 deadline for submission of TLD applications to ICANN approaching, we were curious about the status of applications for culture-based TLDs, and approached representatives from organizations advocating for TLDs for Wales and Scotland.

First up was a conversation earlier this month between the principle advocate for Wales’ .cymru TLD, Maredudd ap Gwyndaf, and two Connecting.nyc Inc. board members, Thomas Lowenhaupt and Robert Pollard.

Mr. Lowenhaupt first met Maredudd at the June 2007 ICANN meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Maredudd had traveled to San Juan to express to ICANN board members the intent of the Welsh people to acquire and develop the .cymru TLD as a cultural resource, as Mr. Lowenhaupt had for the .nyc TLD. Both worked for 5 years seeking a level playing field in the ICANN’s application process for their geographic and cultural TLDs. 

An email from Maredudd responding to our invitation had prepped the conversation, “How are things coming along with NYC? I think that the last time we spoke was back in the Paris ICANN meeting in 2008. There were rumors of at least three potential applicants for .nyc at the time so it’s nice to see that you’re still involved.” Then on a sad note Maredudd stated:

“It’s got to the point now where I’m organising an AGM to close the company down. It’s impossible for us to compete against Nominet when the civil servants support them and the friends of the Welsh Government have been placed in Nominet’s advisory committee in Wales. Also, since the Welsh Government wants Nominet to be the registry for the TLD they won’t give us any money - although we do have the $185.000 in a loan. The UK Government has the last word on this since they will be giving the letter of no objection and they know Nominet well and won’t consider Welsh communities, language or culture when deciding whether to support Nominet or not.”

With that email as backdrop for the hour long conversation, the talk had few high notes. An exception was the Wales-Hangout-b.jpgapparent success of Scotland in maintaining control of their TLD for the enhancement of the Scottish culture. More on that soon. 

In response to Maredudd’s inquiry as to the status of our effort, Thomas explained how, when the city announced its intention to apply for the TLD in 2009, and thereby met the organization’s initial goal, his organization had stepped aside as applicant and offered to assist with the educational tasks. But he noted with regret that the city had not undertaken any such tasks, and had not engaged his organization or the public in the development process. As a result, in December 2011, with the application deadline fast approaching, and no research or education having taken place, their organization recommended that: 

Having worked and waited over 10 years for this opportunity to arise, we find ourselves compelled and saddened to make the following recommendation: Let’s begin now to undertake a comprehensive review of all that a TLD can do for our city. Let’s observe cities receiving TLDs in this first round and learn from the experience. And let’s prepare for ICANN’s next filing opportunity for city-TLDs, expected in perhaps three years - barely enough time to prepare a thoughtful and comprehensive plan.

Thomas and Robert wished Maredudd well and offered their sincerest regret that the Welsh people seen likely to loose the opportunity to foster their culture’s growth with a locally controlled TLD.

(Commons Photo courtesy of CnI Library. Top, Maredudd ap Gwyndaf, Robert Pollard, Thomas Lowenhaupt, bottom. Welsh dragon courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.) 

Learn more about The Campaign for .nyc on our wiki pages.

Filed February 21st, 2012 under .london, Barcelona, City-TLDs, .paris, .berlin

god-from-sistine-chappel.0.jpgJackson Hts., New York, February 12, 2012 - We  first took note of the commons in 2007 when star intern Matt Cooperrider suggested that we include “the commons” in our musings about New York’s TLD. While our early explorations were less than bold, our engagement was emboldened in 2009 when Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economics for her work on managing common pool resources. (See the Common Pool Resource chapter on our wiki.)

And when commons expert David Bollier suggested during an October 2011 interview that city-TLDs could be the newest commons, serving as “open greenfields for new local governance structures,” our interest spiked and we sought ways to engage a broader public in our evaluation.

That opportunity will arise this coming week at Making Worlds: A Forum on the Commons, a 3 day event that begins Thursday in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. We’re proud to report we had a role in organizing this opportunity for all to learn about the commons and the possible role a thoughtfully developed commons might play in creating a more livable, just, and sustainable world.

While we expect the entire Forum to be illuminating, we’re especially looking forward to Saturday’s 5-7 PM workshop Nurturing the Commons, New and Old. The workshop will look at ways a city-TLD can facilitate “new local governance structures” and how the management and governance lessons provided by the likes of Elinor Ostrom can assist in their realization. (See Making Worlds program.)

Making Worlds is a working conference with food provided to all participants courtesy of Occupy Wall Street. Join us in a most exciting event. (Photo courtesy of Michelangelo and Wikimedia Commons.) 

[See Connecting.nyc Inc.’s director Thomas Lowenhaupt’s presentation on SlideShare. And read David Bollier’s report on the event.]

Learn more about The Campaign for .nyc on our wiki pages.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Categories