[Advisors] Re: [NA-Discuss] The TLD-less NYC
Evan Leibovitch
evan at telly.org
Fri, 2 Dec 2011 12:40:05 -0500
--001517447ce8a12b6804b31f75f6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 2 December 2011 01:24, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml@communisphere.com> wrote:
> >I'm right now just finding myself becoming increasingly cynical about the
> social benefits of a glut of new gTLDs as I get more deeply involved with
> ICANN. And while I hate being the downer in the room, TLDs will cost plenty
> to apply for and even more to run. They will have their benefits but should
> be extremely carefully considered and proponents must go in eyes wide open.
>
> I might agree.
>
> But that has little to do with a city-TLD for New York's 19,000,000
> residents. I think we need to unpack this TLD issue and look at the
> different elements.
>
Well, first of all, in this mailing list I'm directing the debate *is*
within a Canadian context, where we have a national TLD that has residency
requirements and is thus not overridden with cruft the way .com it.
And I'm not very much swayed by the numbers game you play. I see no similar
pleas for TLDs for Mexico City or Shanghai or Delhi. To me this is simply
an attempt to deflect the deficiencies of the case by appealing to emotions.
But, OK, if you insist, let's unpack the issue. But I'll do it on a general
scale, while trying to localize it where appropriate.
*Q1: what is a TLD?*
It's a directory, an Internet phone book. While creating new TLDs may stir
new demand for second level domains -- mainly amongst squatters and
speculators -- I see zero evidence that the creation of new TLDs actually
results in more Internet content to go to. I see this like the boom in
phonebooks over the last few decades without a corresponding boom in the
number of phones.
As far as I can tell -- based on EVIDENCE that we can glean from the
previous experiences -- an increase in TLDs does not lead to an increase of
content. The creation of .aero and .travel did not lead to more airlines,
more travel agents, indeed any new Internet innovation in the industries
created by the TLDs themselves. Sure there has been innovation in the
interaction of the Internet and travel (ie. Hipmunk, SeatExpert,
Tripit, FlightAware), but all have been accommodated within that nasty
catch-all domain, .com.
Likewise, .museum did not create any museums, nor did it make existing
museums any easier to find. (Hint to Tom: If they didn't want "
guggenheim.museum" or "moma.museum", they won't want "guggenheim.nyc" or
"moma.nyc" either... "guggenheim.org" and "moma.org" work just fine for
them....)
One of the biggest mischaracterisations I have seen advocates do is to
equate the provision of domains with the provision of Internet content (web
sites, cloud services, email, etc), they're not anywhere the same. I have
yet to hear of one source of Internet content (based on the Latin character
set) that has said "we won't go on the Internet because we can't get the
right domain". Content providers in other character sets (ie, Chinese,
Arabic) may have a point here but certainly not anything in North America.
Having a domain is not an issue of free speech. 19M residents in NYC does
not equate to the need for 19M domains or 19K or even 190. It doesn't even
need 19M IP addresses (which is slowing adoption of IPv6). All the writers,
advertisers and photographers at the New York Times use a single domain for
expressing themselves, and it's not even a TLD. Likewise, a single
second-level domain could service hundreds of civic agencies, community
groups and NGOs. And, being a second-level domain, its organizer is free to
set pricing and choose how to allocate subdomains without being subject to
ICANN's registry policies.
I have yet to see a compelling case for the inherent technical benefits of
an NYC TLD over a second level domain such as, say, "NYC.US". And that
applies to any city in Canada or, for that matter, anywhere.
*Q2: Who needs a city TLD?*
There is certainly no business need for content providers to require a new
.nyc domain. Most organizations needing a doimain to date have been able to
get one, though (largely thanks to speculators) they probably didn't get
their first choices. (This is, as stated previously, less of a problem in
Canada. The .ca domain is one of the world's best-run.)
As I've mentioned previously, people use many ways to get to their Internet
content and a regular domain name is of ever-dwindling importance. People
who want a restaurant will just type the name into Google, or a specialized
search engine. or even a location and description into a mapping system if
they forget the name.
Michael wanted me to address the fast pace of technology and its effects on
this issue. No problem... if anything, newer technologies make short
Internet domain names (let alone TLDs) far less important than they ever
were). When your report was originally written (I think you mentioned three
years ago), did you consider:
- The use of corporate areas of social media sites (Facebook, Twitter
and now Google+) where you can find many organizations and people without
any domain
- URL shortening services (such as bit.ly or goo.gl) that offer compact
URLs to type in regardless of what the actual target URL is named
- QR codes on printed materials and outdoor advertising, so you can scan
a code anywhere and your browser goes right there, regardless of what the
URL is
- The exploding popularity of the Chrome browser that obfuscates the
difference between domain names and Google searches
- The vast increase of mobile, and its corresponding use of GPS and
voice commands to replace typed-in searches
All of the developments listed above have reduced the importance of the DNS
namespace as a way to get to Internet content. By contrast, only one
relatively recent developments has made the DNS more important (the
introduction of Internationalized Domain Names).
So what's the demand? From what I can see, after the dust has settled the
rationale is simply "we're New-freaking-York, dammit! If we don't deserve a
TLD, who does?" It's an issue of pride, not technical or business need.
*Q3: Who doesn't want new TLDs?*
Brand owners. Anyone who has already invested in a name, by and large, does
NOT want new TLDs that will promote name confusion and just cost them extra
money for zero added value.
I own a measly half-dozen domains on behalf of myself and some friends. On
the basis of this I have recently been spammed with messages (here's but
one example<http://www.midphase.com/protect-your-brand.php/?utm_source=Infusionsoft_Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=.XXX_General_Availability>)
saying that I needed to register my name(s) in first ".co" and later
".xxx" to "protect my brand". Apparently I'm warned that if I don't
register my name(s) defensively someone else will -- and either use them to
confuse end-users or try to shake me down later. This will only mushroom as
the next cohort of TLDs goes live.
Multiple organizations representing brand owners, advertisers and trade
asociations have come out against the entire new gTLD
program<http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/22351>,
accusing it of being a shakedown. Anyone with a brand of value will be
"encouraged" to buy a slew of domains they don't need, or otherwise have to
engage in relentless monitoring and issuing takedown notices to squatters
(not all of which are guaranteed of success).
I seem to recall, Tom, that you explicitly mentioned "hotels.nyc" as an
example of how the TLD will be used. Guess what? At least one major hotel
chain has said they have no use for new
TLDs<http://domainincite.com/marriott-we-probably-wont-use-hotel/>--
still, they will be forced to buy defensive domains that will never be
used. Is it your goal that most of the domain buyers in .nyc will exist
just to be there defensively but generally unused?
So...we have.
- No technical need. Any community that would be served under .city
could be just as easily be served under .city.com or .city.org or
.city.cc or something similar
- Massive opposition by business owners -- providers of content
- Technology that is rapidly diminishing the need and value for
intuitive or easily-remembered domain names
- Previous real examples of new TLDs that have utterly failed to spark
the growth they envisioned
Your turn, Tom.
- Evan
--001517447ce8a12b6804b31f75f6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 2 December 2011 01:24, Thomas Lowenhaupt <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:toml@communisphere.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">toml@communisphere.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div>=C2=A0</div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor=3D"#CCCCCC" text=3D"#000000"><div>>I'm right now just f=
inding myself becoming increasingly cynical
about the social benefits of a glut of new gTLDs as I get more
deeply involved with ICANN. And while I hate being the downer in the
room, TLDs will cost plenty to apply for and even more to run. They
will have their benefits but should be extremely carefully
considered and proponents must go in eyes wide open.<br>
<br></div>
I might agree. <br>
<br>
But that has little to do with a city-TLD for New York's 19,000,000
residents. I think we need to unpack this TLD issue and look at the
different elements. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></di=
v><div>Well, first of all, in this mailing list I'm directing the debat=
e *is* within a Canadian context, where we have a national TLD that has res=
idency requirements and is thus not overridden with cruft the way .com it.<=
/div>
<div><br></div><div>And I'm not very much swayed by the numbers game yo=
u play. I see no similar pleas for TLDs for Mexico City or Shanghai or Delh=
i. To me this is simply an attempt to deflect the deficiencies of the case =
by appealing to emotions.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But, OK, if you insist, let's unpack the issue. But=
I'll do it on a general scale, while trying to localize it where appro=
priate.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Q1: what is a TLD?</b></=
div>
<div><br></div><div>It's a directory, an Internet phone book. While cre=
ating new TLDs may stir new demand for second level domains -- mainly among=
st squatters and speculators -- I see zero evidence that the creation of ne=
w TLDs actually results in more Internet content to go to. I see this like =
the boom in phonebooks over the last few decades without a corresponding bo=
om in the number of phones.</div>
<div><br></div><div>As far as I can tell -- based on EVIDENCE that we can g=
lean from the previous experiences -- an increase in TLDs does not lead to =
an increase of content. The creation of .aero=C2=A0and .travel did not lead=
to more airlines, more travel agents, indeed any new Internet innovation i=
n the industries created by the TLDs themselves. Sure there has been innova=
tion in the interaction of the Internet and travel (ie. Hipmunk, SeatExpert=
, Tripit,=C2=A0FlightAware), but all have been accommodated within that nas=
ty catch-all domain, .com.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Likewise, .museum did not create any museums, nor did i=
t make existing museums any easier to find.=C2=A0(Hint to Tom: If they didn=
't want "<a href=3D"http://guggenheim.museum" target=3D"_blank">gu=
ggenheim.museum</a>" or "<a href=3D"http://moma.museum" target=3D=
"_blank">moma.museum</a>", they won't want "guggenheim.nyc&qu=
ot; or "moma.nyc" either... "<a href=3D"http://guggenheim.or=
g" target=3D"_blank">guggenheim.org</a>" and "<a href=3D"http://m=
oma.org" target=3D"_blank">moma.org</a>" work just fine for them....)<=
/div>
<div><br></div><div>One of the biggest mischaracterisations I have seen adv=
ocates do is to equate the provision of domains with the provision of Inter=
net content (web sites, cloud services, email, etc), they're not anywhe=
re the same. I have yet to hear of one source of Internet content (based on=
the Latin character set) that has said "we won't go on the Intern=
et because we can't get the right domain". Content providers in ot=
her character sets (ie, Chinese, Arabic) may have a point here but certainl=
y not anything in North America.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Having a domain is not an issue of free speech. 19M res=
idents in NYC does not equate to the need for 19M domains or 19K or even 19=
0. It doesn't even need 19M IP addresses (which is slowing adoption of =
IPv6). All the writers, advertisers and photographers at the New York Times=
use a single domain for expressing themselves, and it's not even a TLD=
. Likewise, a single second-level domain could service hundreds of civic ag=
encies, community groups and NGOs. And, being a second-level domain, its or=
ganizer is free to set pricing and choose how to allocate subdomains withou=
t being subject to ICANN's registry policies.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I have yet to see a compelling case for the inherent te=
chnical benefits of an NYC TLD over a second level domain such as, say, &qu=
ot;<a href=3D"http://NYC.US" target=3D"_blank">NYC.US</a>". And that a=
pplies to any city in Canada or, for that matter, anywhere.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Q2: Who needs a city TLD?</b></div><d=
iv><br></div><div>There is certainly no business need for content providers=
to require a new .nyc domain. Most organizations needing a doimain to date=
have been able to get one, though (largely thanks to speculators) they pro=
bably didn't get their first choices. (This is, as stated previously, l=
ess of a problem in Canada. The .ca domain is one of the world's best-r=
un.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>As I've mentioned previously, people use many ways =
to get to their Internet content and a regular domain name is of ever-dwind=
ling importance. People who want a restaurant will just type the name into =
Google, or a specialized search engine. or even a location and description =
into a mapping system if they forget the name.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Michael wanted me to address the fast pace of technolog=
y and its effects on this issue. No problem... if anything, newer technolog=
ies make short Internet domain names (let alone TLDs) far less important th=
an they ever were).=C2=A0When your report was originally written (I think y=
ou mentioned three years ago), did you consider:</div>
<div><ul><li>The use of corporate areas of social media sites (Facebook, Tw=
itter and now Google+) where you can find many organizations and people wit=
hout any domain</li>
<li>URL shortening services (such as <a href=3D"http://bit.ly" target=3D"_b=
lank">bit.ly</a> or <a href=3D"http://goo.gl" target=3D"_blank">goo.gl</a>)=
that offer compact URLs to type in regardless of what the actual target UR=
L is named</li>
<li>QR codes on printed materials and outdoor advertising, so you can scan =
a code anywhere and your browser goes right there, regardless of what the U=
RL is</li>
<li>The exploding popularity of the Chrome browser that obfuscates the diff=
erence between domain names and Google searches</li><li>The vast increase o=
f mobile, and its corresponding use of GPS and voice commands to replace ty=
ped-in searches</li>
</ul></div><div>All of the developments listed above have reduced the impor=
tance of the DNS namespace as a way to get to Internet content. By contrast=
, only one relatively recent developments has made the DNS more important (=
the introduction of Internationalized Domain Names).</div>
<div><br></div><div>So what's the demand? From what I can see, after th=
e dust has settled the rationale is simply "we're New-freaking-Yor=
k, dammit! If we don't deserve a TLD, who does?" It's an issue=
of pride, not technical or business need.</div>
<div><br>
</div><div><br></div><div><b>Q3: Who <i>doesn't</i> want new TLDs?</b><=
/div><div><br></div><div>Brand owners. Anyone who has already invested in a=
name, by and large, does NOT want new TLDs that will promote name confusio=
n and just cost them extra money for zero added value.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I own a measly half-dozen domains on behalf of myself a=
nd some friends. On the basis of this I have recently been spammed with mes=
sages (<a href=3D"http://www.midphase.com/protect-your-brand.php/?utm_sourc=
e=3DInfusionsoft_Newsletter&utm_medium=3DEmail&utm_campaign=3D.XXX_=
General_Availability">here's but one example</a>) =C2=A0saying that I n=
eeded to register my name(s) in first ".co" and later ".xxx&=
quot; to "protect my brand". Apparently I'm warned that if I =
don't register my name(s) defensively someone else will -- and either u=
se them to confuse end-users or try to shake me down later. This will only =
mushroom as the next cohort of TLDs goes live.</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href=3D"http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/22351" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">Multiple organizations representing brand owners, advertise=
rs and trade asociations have come out against the entire new gTLD program<=
/a>, accusing it of being a shakedown. Anyone with a brand of value will be=
"encouraged" to buy a slew of domains they don't need, or ot=
herwise have to engage in relentless monitoring and issuing takedown notice=
s to squatters (not all of which are guaranteed of success).</div>
<div><br></div><div>I seem to recall, Tom, that you explicitly mentioned &q=
uot;hotels.nyc" as an example of how the TLD will be used. Guess what?=
<a href=3D"http://domainincite.com/marriott-we-probably-wont-use-hotel/" t=
arget=3D"_blank">At least one major hotel chain has said they have no use f=
or new TLDs</a> -- still, they will be forced to buy defensive domains that=
will never be used. Is it your goal that most of the domain buyers in .nyc=
will exist just to be there defensively but generally unused?</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>So...we have.</div><div><ul><li>No techn=
ical need. Any community that would be served under .city could be just as =
easily be served under .<a href=3D"http://city.com">city.com</a> or .<a hre=
f=3D"http://city.org">city.org</a> or .city.cc or something similar</li>
<li>Massive opposition by business owners -- providers of content</li><li>T=
echnology that is rapidly diminishing the need and value for intuitive or e=
asily-remembered domain names</li><li>Previous real examples of new TLDs th=
at have utterly failed to spark the growth they envisioned</li>
</ul></div><div>Your turn, Tom.</div><div><br></div><div>- Evan</div><div><=
br></div><div><br></div></div>
--001517447ce8a12b6804b31f75f6--