This is the wiki page for At-Large comments on "Limited Public Interest" and "Community Objection" Grounds for the applied for string ".nyc" for the 7 month Objection Period from June 13 to mid-January 2013.
The ALAC has standing to object to a gTLD application on "Limited Public Interest Objection Grounds and community objection grounds
ICANN's Public Comments during the Application Comment Period can be viewed at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-comments
The following are the applicants for the ".nyc" applied for string.
| String | Applicant | Location | Community | Primary Contact | Contact | Application ID | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NYC | The City of New York by and through the New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications | US | - | Mr. Kenneth Hansen | - | tldapps@neustar.biz | 1-1715-21938 |
NOTE: You must be logged in to post comments. If you do not have a wiki account, please email your comment to the gTLD RG group at newgtldrg@icann.org.
The gTLD RG reserves the right to remove comments that do not adhere to ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior and Open Comment Forum Process and Standards.
Decision by the gTLD RG (8 February 2013)
The new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) wishes to thank everyone for the comments received.
Members of the gTLD RG considered the comments from the At-Large community as of February 8 2013 and based on these comments and discussions, decided there will be no drafting of an objection statement on community grounds given the comments received as on February 8 2013 indicated that the initial objection concerns raised were being addressed. A late comment sent to the gTLD RG on 11 February 2013 was treated by the gTLD RG as being submitted too late for consideration.
11 Comments
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Limited Public Interest Grounds
Please reply under this comment thread if your comment is on Limited Public Interest Objection Grounds
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Community Objection Grounds
Please reply under this comment thread if your comment is on Community Objection Grounds
Robert Pollard
No public consultation in preparing .nyc application
The fundamental source of the flaws in the .nyc application(1) is the process by which the application was prepared, namely the failure to provide any meaningful opportunity for public consultation. This is despite New York City’s proclaimed commitment to the use of information and communications technology in support of enhanced civic engagement and open government as expressed in its “Road Map for the Digital City: Achieving New York City’s Digital Future”(2), “New York City’s Digital Roadmap: Progress & Innovation”(3) and elsewhere.
Inconsistency with principles of civic engagement and open government
A sound and well-developed application for .nyc could have provided New York City with an exceptional opportunity to prepare an application that would be worthy of its status as a world-class city. Home to a dynamic community of digital expertise and experience - including designers, policy advocates, publishers and users - and a host of citizen advocacy organizations and acivist, a broad-based public consultation would surely have given rise to a much more powerful expression of the mission and goals of a .nyc gTLD. With suitable publicity and readily accessible opportunities for participation, issues such as linking the development of .nyc to a commitment to address the digital divide, to provide for universal broadband access, and to strengthening digital literacy - and more broadly for .nyc to be developed as a catalyst for a greatly enhanced Digital NYC.
Unpublicized late notice for the one and only “Public Hearing”
The only public hearing on the .nyc application was held with just three days notice - instead of the normal seven - and the only “publicity” for the hearing was a small notice buried at the bottom of page 676 of the March 20 NYC City Record as a ''Late Notice'' on "Agency Public Hearings on Contract Awards'. Furthermore, the hearings were held only three weeks before ICANN’s April 12 application deadline for new gTLDs, effectively leaving no time for New York City to incorporate any concerns expressed at the hearing.(4)
New York City’s Chief Digital Officer has defended the City’s public hearing process in a recent response to an objection by Tom Lowenhaupt on behalf of Connecting nyc, and while her defense may be narrowly valid as far as the letter of the law is concerned, New York City made no meaningful or substantial effort to embody the spirit of New York City’s proclaimed commitment to citizen engagement and open government. The simple and clear fact is that New York City made no real effort either to publicize the application initiative, nor to provide for and invite broad-based participation from the highly diverse communities of New Yorkers.
State of the Digital City: Government 2.0 and its Impact on Policymaking
Ironically, two days before the only public hearing on the application for the .nyc gTLD, the annual State of the City event hosted by the NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service with the theme “State of the Digital City: Government 2.0 and its Impact on Policymaking”(5), hailed New York City’s growing status as a leading Digital City and the opportunities for enhanced civic engagement, open government and universal access. http://isoc-ny.org/p2/3168
.nyc & the Digital Road Map for New York City
The 2012 Digital Roadmap, as part of its “Next Steps for Engagement” promises to “Launch ongoing listening sessions across the five boroughs to encourage input”(6), however, more than a year has passed since the “@nycgov Meetup: Shape New York City Government's Digital Future”(7) was set up, and not a single Meetup or listening session has been scheduled. The City’s failure to follow through on its promise of public participation raises serious concerns as the extent of its commitment to citizen engagement and open government, as well as the extent that the Digital Roadmap - in addition to the .nyc application - addresses the digital & information needs of New Yorkers.
Meanwhile, the .nyc application gets scant attention in the 2012 Digital Roadmap, and is the last-but-one item - on page 51 of a 52-page report - and listed under “Next Steps for Industry” focusing on promotion, advertising and revenue opportunities for the City, rather than as a key unifying overall theme for a state-of-the-art Digital New York City.
“With the historic launch of the .nyc TLD, the City will embrace its digital future in a powerful way and bring an unprecedented level of geographic authority to the digital sphere. In addition, the City will generate revenue, help residents locate government services, encourage local businesses to thrive, market and promote tourism, and spread the dynamic image of New York City around the world.”
However, consideration of .nyc as a promotional tool for the City, a source of revenue for New York City reflects a very short-sighted perspective on the potential long-term benefits of the gTLD and of a Digital New York City, and fails to recognize the far more significant economic and social benefits that would accrue to the City and to New Yorkers from addressing the issue from holistic perspective that recognize the vital importance of universal access and the development of broad-based digital literacy and digital capabilities necessary to strengthen New York’s competitiveness as a leading global city.
.nyc Community Advisory Board
It was encouraging to read in the 2012 Digital Roadmap that:
“Crucially, 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.”
However, it was less than two weeks ago that any steps were taken to begin the process of setting up a .nyc Advisory Board - seeming at least in part in response to the first objection from Connecting nyc. Meanwhile, the draft terms of reference for the Advisory Board are very limited, and significantly, make no reference to a role or responsibilities of the Board in actively soliciting public input and in convening open, well-publicized and readily-accessible public listening sessions in all the City’s five boroughs; nor have any budgetary provisions been offered for appropriate publicity or to cover the costs of such listening sessions inclusing the requisite administrative expenses.
Smarter, Greener, Climate-Friendly NYC
An important omission in the ,nyc application - and in the Digital Roadmap - is a failure to recognize the ways in which smarter, more digitally-connected and digitally-literate and digitally-capable residents, businesses and government agencies can play a key role in reducing New York City’s ecological footprint and its notorious traffic congestion - by providing for the increasing substitution of material goods with digital goods, by significantly reducing needs for the time, cost and carbon footprint of physical travel, e.g. by the use of high-speed broadband connections for meetings, and through the availability of convenient and affordable co-working space.
“PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York” - and “PlaNYC 2011 Update: A Greener, Greater New York”(8) - has been developed as a key component of New York City’s strategy for long-term sustainability including the City’s preparedness for climate change. By contrast wih the .nyc application, the preparations for the 2011update of PlaNYC were supported by well-designed and well-publicized online consultation & participation opportunities; supplemented by active online fora, the PlaNYC consultation process should have served as a model for public input into the .nyc application - as well as for public consultation by the .nyc Advisory Board.
Meanwhile it would be important for the next update of PlaNYC to incorporate and address the vital potential role of the .nyc gTLD and an enhanced Digital Roadap in reducing the ecological footprint of New York City
.nyc and Long-term Planning
The importance of substantial integration of .nyc and the Digital Roadmap with PlaNYC is also based on a recognition that preparations for a state-of-the-art Digital New York City is clearly a long-term planning issue, and as such, needs to be fully integrated with planning for sustainability.
Digital Technology as Key Driver of Economic Development
The .nyc application and the Digital Roadmap also fail to recognize the profound significance of information and communications technologies as a key driver in economic development that extends far beyond the growth of the City’s digital industry. If New York City is to realize a vision growth to include the adoption of digital technology throughout almost economic, social and cultural sectors.
Key Detriments of the .nyc application
If the .nyc application is approved in its present form, New Yorkers in all walks of life will suffer the major loss of what could otherwise have been a framework for a world-class top-level domain had it been prepared with the benefits of significant public participation. New Yorkers deserve better.
_______________________________________________
Submitted on behalf of Information Habitat: Where Information Lives - habitat.igc.org , NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic & Social Council, and a pioneer in supporting and promoting the use of information and communication technologies in support of broad-based participation in major UN Conferences beginning with preparations for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Information Habitat has also played a lead role in focusing on the role of information and communication technologies as a critical foundation for a sustainable common future.(9) Robert Pollard, Founder & Information Ecologist, ecology2001@gmail.com, linkedin.com/in/robertpollard
Notes:
1. See “.nyc gTLD Application Highlights” - reformatted, easy-to-read non-technical highlights of the .nyc application: http://nyc-info.net/nyc-application-excerpts.pdf
2. “Road Map for the Digital City: Achieving New York City’s Digital Future” - bookmarked version http://nyc-info.net/digitalroadmap2011.pdf
3. “New York City’s Digital Roadmap: Progress & Innovation” - bookmarked version http://nyc-info.net/digitalroadmap2012.pdf
4. See: “March 23, 2011: Last-minute hidden "Public Hearing" on .nyc top-level domain #dotnyc #opengov #AskMike #nyc https://plus.google.com/u/0/106632164238171300064/posts/YeKFhujdbMz
5. “State of the Digital City: Government 2.0 and its Impact on Policymaking”, sponsored by New York University’s Wagner's Urban Planning Student Association and NYU Law School's Law and Government Society http://wagner.nyu.edu/events/wpa-03-21-2012 - Video at isoc-ny.org/p2/3168
6. From: “New York City’s Digital Roadmap: Progress & Innovation”, page 47
“To ensure the success of public-private partnerships and constantly evaluate engagement efforts, NYC Digital, in partnership with the Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications, will conduct listening sessions with local communities and partners with the aim of collecting feedback concerning the main areas of focus of the digital roadmap: access, education, open government, engagement and industry. Through these sessions, the City will share updates with the public and encourage feedback and suggestions to make improvements that serve New Yorkers
To facilitate these listening sessions, the City, in partnership with the New York Tech Meetup, launched an NYC Gov Meetup, leveraging the homegrown startup’s format used widely within the tech community. New Yorkers interested in participating in the first listening session in fall 2012 are encouraged to sign up for the NYC Gov Meetup: meetup.com/nycgov
7. @nycgov Meetup: Shape New York City Government's Digital Future - meetup.com/nycgov/
8. “PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York” - nyc-info.net/planyc.pdf - “PlaNYC 2011 Update: A Greener, Greater New York”- http://nyc-info.net/planyc2011update.pdf - bookmarked versions
9. See “Information & Communications Technologies: Critical Foundation for a Sustainable Common Future” - Zero Draft contribution for the Rio+20 / United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development submitted by Information Habitat: Where Information Lives. habitat.igc.org/ie/ict4scf.htm & habitat.igc.org/ie/ict4scf.pdf (bookmarked pdf)
Thomas Lowenhaupt
The application for the .nyc TLD by the City of New York in many ways purports to be a community application, citing community benefits in multiple instances, for example, using "community" or "communities" 12 times in answer to question 18. Yet when it comes to answering question 19, "Is this application for a community-based TLD?" - the city answered No.
Perhaps the decade long, stop-and-go global application development process for new TLDs was too convoluted for a local city bureaucracy. Certainly the ICANN did little to address the unique needs of cities, treating New York, Paris, Istanbul, Moscow, and Tokyo no differently than .band, .bingo, or .gold. And when it came time to complete the application, the city found itself unable to effectively answer the questions about community engagement required in questions 20:
City government was incapable of answering these question in a robust manner as it had not engaged with the public in a significant and meaningful manner. The only public engagement was a required hearing by the agency responsible for submitting the application, the city's Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications. The hearing was held a few days before signing the contract, announced by one "official notice" in an obscure government publication. No mention of the hearing was made in the traditional mass media. No briefing or background papers were provided for the public. As a consequence, fewer than 10 people attended the hearing and only 3 availed themselves of the 3 minutes speaking time allowed.
What is .nyc?
Officially, "NYC" is the International Air Transport Association’s designation for the metropolitan area. Thus one booking a flight from Chicago to New York can indicate a choice by entering the code for one of the region’s airports, indicating JFK, LGA, or EWR - for Kennedy, LaGuardia, or Newark airports. Or one can choose NYC to indicate no particular preference - “Just get me to New York via any of the area's 3 airports.”
Similar 3 character metro codes are used for London and its 4 airports (LON), Paris and its 3 metro airports (PAR), for Tokyo’s 2 metro area airports (TYO), and Chicago (CHI). (The assignment of these codes is governed by IATA Resolution 763, and administered by IATA headquarters in Montreal .) To the IATA, and air travelers globally, NYC is a regional designation that includes an airport in Newark, New Jersey as well as two in New York City proper.
Historically, the “NYC” characters have been used in the center of the tri-state region’s TV weather maps. And in recent years the City of New York has begun using a balloon typeface NYC on its stationery. But is the NYC string “owned” by city government and city residents?
Had city government educated and engaged the public it might have found New Yorkers preferred .newyorkcity or .newyork. But those hearings did not take place. And the city decided to use a regional designation for its own benefit.
The application for the .nyc TLD by the city of New York should be held in abeyance until the City of New York holds informed region-wide public hearings (if for .nyc) enabling the community to fully understand the consequence of the endeavor. This is a Critical Internet Resource that may well determine the effectiveness of the city's digital infrastructure for decades to come. Residents and businesses should have a say in deciding its use.
Thomas Lowenhaupt, Director
Connecting.nyc Inc.
Our Blog
TomL@communisphere.com
Connecting.nyc Inc. is a New York State not-for-profit created in 2006 to educate New Yorkers about the opportunities that arise with its Top Level Domain.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Reply from Rachel Sterne Haot, Chief Digital Officer of the City of New York: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtldrg/2013-February/000259.html.
Email includes this attachment : dotNYC-RFI-Response-Connecting-nyc-Inc-May-27-2009.doc
Dear Members of the At Large Advisory Committee:
This message is the City of New York's ("City") response to Tom Lowenhaupt's request for the At Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") to file a community objection to the City's application for the .nyc top-level domain (Application ID: 1-1715-21938<http://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/442>). As discussed below, Mr. Lowenhaupt does not produce any meritorious argument in support of his request.
For the sake of clarity, the City has copied Mr. Lowenhaupt's various arguments and responded to each one individually.
Tom Lowenhaupt's Comment:
The application for the .nyc TLD by the City of New York in many ways purports to be a community application, citing community benefits in multiple instances, for example, using "community" or "communities" 12 times in answer to question 18. Yet when it comes to answering question 19, "Is this application for a community-based TLD?" - the city answered No.
City's Response:
Mr. Lowenhaupt is incorrect - the City's application for the .nyc TLD is not, and does not purport to be, a community based application. ICANN does not require geographic gTLDs to be submitted as "Community gTLDs". In fact, the overwhelming majority of geographic gTLD applications also answered "no" to this question<http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/viewstatus>.
Of course, just because a gTLD is not designated "community", that does not mean the gTLD cannot serve the community. Typically, the role of a city government is to represent the interests and serve the needs of its residents, businesses, and visitors. As Mr. Lowenhaupt notes, the word "community" is mentioned many times in the application. This is because the City does intend to use the .nyc gTLD to serve the NYC community; the City merely decided not to submit it under ICANN's category that happened to contain the same word (i.e. "community").
Tom Lowenhaupt's Comment:
Perhaps the decade long, stop-and-go global application development process for new TLDs was too convoluted for a local city bureaucracy. Certainly the ICANN did little to address the unique needs of cities, treating New York, Paris, Istanbul, Moscow, and Tokyo no differently than .band, .bingo, or .gold. And when it came time to complete the application, the city found itself unable to effectively answer the questions about community engagement required in questions 20:
20(a). Provide the name and full description of the community that the applicant is committing to serve.
20(b). Explain the applicant's relationship to the community identified in 20(a).
20(c). Provide a description of the community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD.
20(d). Explain the relationship between the applied-for gTLD string and the community identified in 20(a).
20(e). Provide a description of the applicant's intended registration policies in support of the community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD.
20(f). Attach any written endorsements from institutions/groups representative of the community identified in 20(a).
City government was incapable of answering these question in a robust manner as it had not engaged with the public in a significant and meaningful manner. The only public engagement was a required hearing by the agency responsible for submitting the application, the city's Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications. The hearing was held a few days before signing the contract, announced by one "official notice" in an obscure government publication. No mention of the hearing was made in the traditional mass media. No briefing or background papers were provided for the public. As a consequence, fewer than 10 people attended the hearing and only 3 availed themselves of the 3 minutes speaking time allowed.
City's Response:
The City of New York responded to every question required of a Geographic gTLD. The City did not respond to the questions above because the application was not designated as a "Community gTLD." In the application, questions 19 (which asks if the application is community-based) and 20 are the only two questions under the heading "Community-based Designation." Each of the subquestions within question 20 refers to "the community." As such, the only logical inference is that applicants are only to answer question 20 if they answered 19 in the affirmative, which the City did not.
Please also note that the overwhelming majority of applications for Geographic gTLDs also did not designate themselves as "Community gTLDs"<http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/viewstatus> and therefore did not respond to these questions.
As Mr. Lowenhaupt acknowledges, the City conducted a public hearing in advance of submitting its application. The hearing was conducted in a manner that met longstanding procurement policies, regulations and process for the City of New York, including requirements for public announcements.
There were also opportunities for public comment and input prior to the hearing. In fact, in April 2009, the City issued a Request for Information ("RFI") to solicit feedback about options for the administration and use of the .nyc TLD. Mr. Lowenhaupt himself provided a very detailed response (see attached). The City used the various responses to the RFI to craft the City's formal Request for Proposal ("RFP"). Mr. Lowenhaupt did not submit an RFP response of his own, but may have participated in or advised others who responded. If he did so participate and/or advise, Mr. Lowenhaupt should disclose such involvement to the ALAC immediately.
Furthermore, Mr. Lowenhaupt initiated a resolution though his Community Board including recommendations regarding .nyc. All City residents have this same opportunity to provide input by way of their Community Boards. This is one of many mechanisms City residents can avail themselves to provide input and feedback to the New York City Government. Mr. Lowenhaupt also provided input in email exchanges, phone calls and face-to-face meetings with the City and in communications with Neustar.
Mr. Lowenhaupt availed himself of the many opportunities provided by the City to express his views on the proposed TLD. Because ultimately the City did not adopt all of Mr. Lowenhaupt's views, he is now attempting to use the ICANN At Large Advisory Council to set aside the results of the City's statutorily mandated processes and procedure. It is not the role of ALAC to evaluate the sufficiency of the City's requirements for administrative procedures or compliance with the City's administrative requirements.
Tom Lowenhaupt's Comment:
What is .nyc?
Officially, "NYC" is the International Air Transport Association's designation for the metropolitan area. Thus one booking a flight from Chicago to New York can indicate a choice by entering the code for one of the region's airports, indicating JFK, LGA, or EWR - for Kennedy, LaGuardia, or Newark airports. Or one can choose NYC to indicate no particular preference - "Just get me to New York via any of the area's 3 airports."
Similar 3 character metro codes are used for London and its 4 airports (LON), Paris and its 3 metro airports (PAR), for Tokyo's 2 metro area airports (TYO), and Chicago (CHI). (The assignment of these codes is governed by IATA Resolution 763, and administered by IATA headquarters in Montreal .) To the IATA, and air travelers globally, NYC is a regional designation that includes an airport in Newark, New Jersey as well as two in New York City proper.
Historically, the "NYC" characters have been used in the center of the tri-state region's TV weather maps. And in recent years the City of New York has begun using a balloon typeface NYC on its stationery. But is the NYC string "owned" by city government and city residents?
City's Response:
The City of New York is the geographic area including the five boroughs (Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx and Staten Island. "NYC" has been commonly used to mean New York City well before the International Air Transport Association ("IATA") was founded, let alone when it created airport codes. A quick NY Times on-line archive search<http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F10611FB3B5412738DDDAB0994D9405B838CF1D3> provides example after example of the use of "NYC" to refer to the City since at least since 1903. By contrast, IATA, which refers to itself merely as a trade association<http://www.iata.org/about/Pages/index.aspx>, wasn't even founded until 1945<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IATA>.
The City government's Website is nyc.gov. If you search for "NYC" on Wikipedia, Wikipedia takes you to the entry for New York City<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyc>. In other words, Wikipedia regards New York City as the first and foremost meaning of 'NYC'. The top two results for a search on Google for "NYC"<http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=nyc&oq=nyc&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.2041.2654.0.2996.3.3.0.0.0.0.79.208.3.3.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.hp.EDEXRbRrYdE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41934586,d.dmg&fp=5888ed2a9af8b67f&biw=1280&bih=939> are links to the City's website.
The City of New York also holds a number of related trademarks with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (see attached). Please note that the City of New York has also been delegated the nyc.gov and nyc.ny.us second and third level domains. These actions show the U.S. government's clear indication that the City is indicated by the NYC designation, including the five boroughs that comprise New York City. (See https://www.dotgov.gov/portal/web/dotgov/policy with respect to .gov designations and the federal government's consideration of .gov operators.)
The claim that the City does not have authority to apply for a new gTLD does not follow logic or precedent. The New gTLD Guidebook ("Guidebook") requires applicants for geographic TLDs to have the support of the relevant government. If the democratically elected New York City Government does not have the authority to for apply for .nyc, in accordance with its legally adopted policies and procedures, then the Guidebook's support requirement is moot. Such a result is clearly not what ICANN would have intended.
Tom Lowenhaupt's Comment:
Community opposition to the application is substantial.
City's Response:
Mr. Lowenhaupt's objections clearly do not meet the requirement under Section 3.5.4 of the Guidebook that an objector prove that community objection to a proposed gTLD is "substantial". To date, Mr. Lowenhaupt represents the sole objector to the .nyc application. There is no basis for assuming that the comments of one individual (or his "Connecting .nyc Inc." - unidentified as to membership and representation) constitutes substantiation objection. In a city of well over 8 million people, one objector and one ill-defined community group is hardly persuasive. Indeed, Mr. Lowenhaupt has shown: (a) no basis for assuming that a single objector in a group of over 8 million is numerically significant; (b) nothing to indicate that he or his group are representative of a larger set of individuals or groups opposed to the .nyc application; (c) what level or recognized statute he or his group have within a larger group of opponents; (d) any diversity of interest represented by he or his group in relationship to a larger community or who exactly is a "member" of his "community"; (e) what historical defense of his "community" he or his group have in other contexts; or (f) what costs he or his group have incurred.
Basically, there is nothing about Mr. Lowenhaupt's comments that could lead ALAC to conclude that, in a city or geographic area like New York City, there exists substantial objection to the City's application for the .nyc TLD.
In conclusion, the ALAC should not permit its objection process to be misused to overturn the legitimate results of the City's consultation on use of "NYC" - which is globally recognized as a reference to the City of New York - in the domain name space. This is especially true where the arguments in the request for an objection contain absolutely no merit.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Rachel Sterne Haot
Chief Digital Officer of the City of New York
Rachel Sterne Haot
Chief Digital Officer
Mayor's Office of Media & Entertainment
1 Centre Street, 27th Floor, New York, NY, 10007
(212) 669-8951 | rhaot@media.nyc.gov<mailto:rsterne@media.nyc.gov>
City of New York
nyc.gov | @nycgov
Attachment : dotNYC-RFI-Response-Connecting-nyc-Inc-May-27-2009.doc
Thomas Lowenhaupt
"Mr. Lowenhaupt did not submit an RFP response of his own, but may have participated in or advised others who responded. If he did so participate and/or advise, Mr. Lowenhaupt should disclose such involvement to the ALAC immediately."
Without recompense, I advised CORE, NeuStar, Verisign, and any other party whose ear I could reach on how they might best serve the New York community through their involvement with the .nyc TLD.
Thomas Lowenhaupt
Additional comment by Connecting.nyc Inc. on the application submitted by the New York City for the .nyc TLD and its the possible impact upon the local community.
Hoboken.nyc
Background
On April 19, 2001 the 50 members of New York City’s Queens Community Board 3 passed an Internet Empowerment Resolution calling for the acquisition and development of the .nyc Top Level Domain as a public interest resource. Community Boards provide the grassroots governance level in the City, thus Community Board 3’s Resolution might be said to have expressed the interests of 175,000 city residents.
The Resolution called upon the city’s Commission on Public Information and Communication (COPIC), an 11 member body with representatives of residents, industry, and government to lead the acquisition effort. In the months following the Resolution’s passage support was expressed by the area’s elected representatives: city council members, the Borough President, and its U.S. Congress Member. Other Community Boards also indicated support for the Resolution. However, with the September 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center, the city’s focus shifted to more pressing matters.
It was not until 2005, when the ICANN began to develop a plan for issuing new TLDs in earnest, that focused interest was again expressed for the .nyc TLD’s acquisition. With local support for the resolution still strong, Queens Community Board 3 brought the opportunity presented by the ICANN’s activities to the attention of COPIC and the office of the Mayor. Both declined to engage with the acquisition effort indicating a lack of staff resources (COPIC) or, in the case of city hall, the existance of adequate digital resources in the form of the nyc.gov website.
With city hall having declined engagement, and with the strategic value of the .nyc TLD (and the Internet) increasing on a daily basis, members of Queens Community Board 3 explored the options. Noting that the 2001 Internet Empowerment Resolution called for .nyc’s acquisition by COPIC “or another broad based public interest organization,” a New York State not-for-profit, Connecting.nyc Inc., was formed by local residents in 2006 to pursue the Resolution’s implementation.
Beginning in 2006 Connecting.nyc Inc. (CnI) joined with grassroots supporters of city-TLDs from Berlin and other geographic entities to make a case to a reluctant ICANN and to the Internet Governance Forum that cities should be eligible recipients of TLDs. And in June 2008, when the ICANN adopted its New TLD Policy, a CnI representative was in Paris to hear that cities were to be included as eligible applicants.
Along with these global activities, CnI began exploring the opportunities for individuals, civil society, business, and government that would arise with a thoughtfully planned and developed city-TLD. With its origins in grassroots governance, CnI was ever conscious of the value and necessity of public engagement and initiated a blog and wiki as key communication channels. As well, it encouraged support by city government through testimony at public hearings, sponsoring and participating in dozens of meetings and events to advocate for, and gather information about, the opportunity.
Finally, in 2009, after a careful review, city government indicated its intention to apply for the .nyc TLD. CnI offered its general support and worked to steer the city administration to view the TLD as digital infrastructure that would best serve city residents if developed in the public interest - a direction that was was not clear in the city’s initial statement of support.
In April 2009 CnI and a handful of existing operators of TLDs were invited to responded to a Request for Information by the city’s Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DoITT). This resulted in an October 2009 Request for Proposals demanding 2 separate proposals from responders. One envelope was to have a proposal based upon the development of .nyc using the standard industry model (in which success is equated to the quantity of domain names sold). In the other was to be a proposal based on .nyc’s operation as a community TLD - the model for which we advocate. Under this model, metrics indicating an improved economy and quality of life were the success indicators. CnI did not respond to the Request for Proposals putting it faith behind the required community proposals.
In early 2012 DoITT announced that it was retaining Neustar Inc. to assist with the marketing and operation of the .nyc TLD. And in June 2012, with the assistance of NeuStar, the city submitted an application to ICANN for the .nyc TLD.
In preparation for the TLDs arrival, the Mayor’s Office of Media & Entertainment, in its August 12, 2012 Digital Roadmap, indicated an intention to create a “...community advisory board and convene public listening sessions to encourage meaningful input into the development of the .nyc strategy.” As of this submission, the city’s community advisory board has not been activated.
Scope of Comment
Connecting.nyc Inc. continues to advocate for the development of .nyc as a public interest resource. And while we question policy decisions encoded in the city’s contract with NeuStar and the ICANN application, many of those concerns could be addressed through a process that begins with the activation of an inclusive, well supported, and impactful Community Advisory Board.
Holding a good deal of faith in the city’s democratic practices, our comments here largely focus on issues exogenous to city government: The boundaries of the .nyc community / geographic area and ICANN practices.
Where and What is nyc?
For some decades the “NYC” characters have been used in the center of the tri-state region’s TV weather maps. And in recent years city government has begun using a balloon typeface "NYC" on its stationery. But is the NYC string “owned” by city government and city residents?
Air Transport
Officially, NYC is the International Air Transport Association’s designation for the metropolitan area. Thus one booking a flight from Chicago to New York can indicate a choice by entering the code for one of the region’s airports, indicating JFK, LGA, or EWR - for Kennedy, LaGuardia, or Newark airports. Or one can choose NYC to indicate no particular preference - “Just get me to New York via any of the area's 3 airports.”
Similar 3 character metro codes are used for London and its 4 airports (LON), Paris and its 3 metro airports (PAR), for Tokyo’s 2 metro area airports (TYO), and Chicago (CHI). (The assignment of these codes is governed by IATA Resolution 763, and administered by IATA headquarters in Montreal.)
To the IATA, and air travelers globally, NYC is a regional designation that includes an airport in Newark, New Jersey as well as two in New York City proper.
Regional Consolidation
When the Duke of York (later to be King James II) granted the land west of the Hudson to two loyal friends in the 17th Century, he established the Hudson River as the boundary between the New York and New Jersey provinces. This legacy from the colonial era diminishes our region to this day as the two (now) states compete for businesses and jobs; holding a "state" view of infrastructure, environmental, and business planning. One recent consequence had New Jersey officials trying to lure the Fresh Direct firm from New York City to Jersey City with a $100 million package of tax breaks, land, and other subsidies.
Today, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey administers many common regional interests – bridges, tunnels, rail, water, air, and teleports. But strategic planners posit that if the region is to remain competitive in an increasingly globalized market, it must solve regional integration problems like those caused by King Charles' myopia.
Some suggest a second regional consolidation is required - the first, in 1898, combined 5 county governments into today's NYC. Minimally, transportation and land use plans must be coordinated, with broader advantages arising through government service delivery consolidation and regional economic development and marketing. The .nyc TLD could serve as a linchpin for addressing these needs, with residents and organizations eligible for .nyc domain names when they or their geographic host (city, town, village, etc.) join under a regional .nyc governance enterprise.
Such consolidation fits with New York’s historic evolution: from a small colony in 1640, to a full county, to 5 counties merged into Greater New York in 1898.
1. From a tiny colony...
2. to a full county...
3. to today’s 5 boroughs...
4. to 75 nodes?
Figure 1. Regional Growth
In a globalized economy New York City and the region’s future are no longer advanced by competing locally. The city must match the offerings of Paris, London, Singapore, and Shanghai.
With that history and necessity in mind, does New York City have the right to claim the .nyc TLD? Is it acting with foresight by proceeding without engaging the broad .nyc community - residents, businesses, universities, the high tech sector, etc? Might the application filed by New York City, with a strict Nexus policy requiring domain name owners to have close city ties not be better met by the .newyorkcity TLD? (Note: The selection of .nyc for the 2001 Internet Empowerment Resolution responded to the historic practice that all TLDs (except for country codes) be 3 characters - .com, .net, .mil, .gov, and .org.)
How might a regional .nyc come about?
Hoboken.nyc
In the city’s June 2012 application to ICANN, the domain name Hoboken.nyc is not a reserved name. And the city's nexus policy says it can not be owned by a New Jersey resident. And the likelihood is that during the coming domain name “gold rush” the New Yorker with the fastest fingers will end up owning Hoboken.nyc, to be used as s/he pleases.
But let's imagine a more community oriented approach to Hoboken.nyc’s development, emerging through a democratic conversation as a regional plan. (Note: Such a plan could be unilaterally developed by the city and would not require regional approval. And talking to our neighbors would, of course, offer benefits.)
So imagine...
It's 2016 and the .nyc TLD has been active for some time and the City is humming: immigrants continue to flow in from around the world, employment is up, the city's budget is balanced, the schools are educating, and tourism is up.
We’re at a meeting of the Hoboken Merchants Association, just under a mile from Manhattan across the Hudson River. Some members are wondering what is required to partake in NYC’s juggernaut. Rudy, the proprietor of a upscale clothing store asks, "How can we get some of those tourists flooding the city over here? Their cell phones don’t seem to lead them here." Alfred, the operator of Hoboken Media, says "All the tourist sites are tied into the city’s digital grid. It leads then to activities and places using those .nyc domain names." Alfred explains that he’d looked into getting the Hoboken.nyc domain name and found that it was reserved and unavailable. Rudy asks, "Why is it reserved? What does that mean? If we got it people would realize we’re part of the city, just across the river." Johann Opengrowth, the Association's manager said “I looked into getting the domain name but Hoboken would have to agree to the New York's consumer affairs regulations, and there might be tax implications.” To which Alfred replied, "Johann, how about looking into it and get back to us at next month's meeting."
And so it might begin.
Over the past 20 years London, Montreal, Paris, Toronto, and Vancouver have expanded their cities in size while giving additional authority to local entities. The New York City region needs a similar regional consolidation if it is to remain globally competitive.
On ICANN & City-TLDs
From the earliest days of the planning process, the ICANN neglected to treat cities and their need for this critical Internet infrastructure (CIR) with due consideration. Indeed, the ICANN chose to treat all TLDs equally, with New York, Paris, Istanbul, Moscow, and Tokyo treated no differently than .band, .bingo, or .gold.
While there might be some administrative ease and fairness to that equality treatment, it ignores the centrality of the effective operation of cities’ to the lives of billions of people (Note: cities now are home to more than 1/2 of the world's population). Thoughtfully developed, city-TLDs can enhance local economies, facilitate civic awareness, improve the quality of safety and health, reduce climate stress, and thus warrant special consideration.
ICANN’s decision not to provide any consideration to the role well planned TLDs might play in cities had its impact on New York City’s preparedness for this submission. Initially at the grassroots level, and more recently at city hall, the city has entertained the idea of acquiring a TLD for more than a decade. But the city’s government is trim and efficient with few resources dedicated to speculation. With emergencies that divert municipal resources and attention for extended periods all too common, focusing on the "possibility" of a city-TLD's arrival proved a tad too difficult.
And with the ICANN’s new TLD mission taking 15 years (and counting) to come to fruition, it’s difficult to accuse the city of "preparation negligence." Indeed, as perhaps the city’s key organization keeping an eye on ICANN’s progress, Connecting.nyc Inc. can attest to the frustration of the stop and go TLD development process. On several occasions we beseeched city hall to activate a planning process and saw the gears of state start to move. But then we watched as the city’s attention diverted with the recurring delays at ICANN.
We submit this comment in the hope that its submission will foster public engagement of the type announced in the city’s Digital Road Map. We envision a robust Community Advisory Board that reaches out to the various sectors of the city to discern an appropriate plan for a world class digital city. And we expect an appropriate response by the city administration will enable the development of a digital grid that provides benefits that match those provides by the street grid of an earlier era.
And while we object to the selection of .nyc as presented in the application to ICANN, we strongly advocate for the acquisition and development of a TLD that serves the public interest.
The Road Ahead
Connecting.nyc Inc.'s mission remains to educate the public about the potential advantages of a thoughtfully designed and developed city-TLD. This viewpoint arose from the Internet Empowerment Resolution and was strengthened from our 7 year engagement with the public in face to face meetings and online. We’re filing this objection with the following outcomes in mind:
For more information about Connecting.nyc Inc.'s efforts see our wiki and blog.
Thomas Lowenhaupt
What is "substantial."
Thomas Lowenhaupt
The guidelines for this review state that for a community objection to be successful, the objector must prove the following:
There is a nearly 400 year old city of New York, located in the State of New York in the United States of America. It has clearly defined borders that have not changed substantially for 115 years, when 5 New York counties became today's 5 boroughs - Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island - to form Greater New York City. The residents of New York City think of themselves as part of the New York community, a network of people and resources. The broader ".nyc" geography described in our earlier comments to the Review Group shares air and water environments, a closely integrated transportation system, social ties, and an economy.
The call for a community oriented TLD for the residents of New York City arose with an Internet Empowerment Resolution passed by a local planning body of the New York City government, Queens Community Board 3, on April 19, in 2001. A New York State not-for-profit corporation, Connecting.nyc Inc., was organized in 2006 to help fulfill that Resolution. Connecting.nyc has been the only New York organization actively engaged with discerning the potential of a city-TLD in meeting the needs of the city - a network of people and resources - and in devising processes wherein New Yorkers can integrate the TLD to augment existing processes and future efforts. The accumulated record of that organization - its research, its outreach to civic society, businesses, government, and residents is largely available through its very substantial record presented in its wiki, blog, and website. This record attests to the community's desire for a TLD oriented toward local needs, with local residents and organizations having a role in the TLD's governance. Connecting.nyc is a small organization with limited resources and has yet to conduct the broad outreach on the city’s June application submitted to ICANN it thinks appropriate. The meetings we have had - for example, at the Neighborhood Preservation Center last May 17, have shown a desire by local residents to control resources such as the 354 historic neighborhoods in the dotNeighborhoods name-set. We have not had an opportunity for the broader outreach needed especially to the security, health, education, and small business sectors.
New York City itself has recognized the prospect of imperfection and opposition to its extant plan and has announced plans to form a Community Advisory Board to further its understanding of the potentials that come with this new resource. (We note that the plan to create this CAB was announced nearly six months ago with no public actions to draw from and consult with the .nyc TLD’s multi-stakeholders.)
New Yorkers have an interest in the .nyc TLD as is evidenced by the 2001 Internet Empowerment Resolution and the formation of Connecting.nyc Inc., and its record. There are some who believe that the applied for TLD should have been .newyork or .newyorkcity rather than .nyc, and that the geographic territory of .nyc refers to a somewhat different community, but all of these related top level domain names are descriptive of the New York community, its people and its resources.
As the applicant has not yet conducted any substantial outreach to the New York community - business, security, health, education, arts, civil society, residents - it is without a democratic directive for this new infrastructure. If it goes forward with the actions described in the ICANN application, it is probable - according to the yearnings we have uncovered over the past several years - that this “driving blind” will fail to meet the social and economic needs and interests of the New York community, as indicated to Connecting.nyc Inc. This might especially apply to residents and organizations outside the traditional city borders, in the greater .nyc area. And as the .nyc area moves into an increasingly digital era, it’s community, its network, will suffer material damage as compared to cities with well planned city-TLDs. The city has only one opportunity to lay out its digital grid, it is vital that state-of-the-art practices be utilized in planning that grid. Otherwise there is substantial likelihood of sub-optimal or a failed development, with residents left wondering what could have been.
Thomas Lowenhaupt
Here's a a paragraph from a recent comment concerning the .nyc objection on an ICANN At-Large list using an example of another geographic area:
Thomas Lowenhaupt
Update on .NYC Objection
Since the submission of our Objection to the Review Group on January 16, 2013, I am delighted to report that the city of New York has begun to address our concern about facilitating inclusive engagement with the New York community through the formation of a .NYC Advisory Board.
I recently received the following message from New York City’s Chief Digital Officer, Rachel Haot (the Primary Contact for the .nyc application):
The goal of the .NYC Advisory Board is to address community concerns as well as provide input towards the policies and strategic launch of the .nyc Top-Level Domain. In light of your expertise, we feel that you would contribute significantly the success of the .NYC initiative.
The Advisory Board will consist of members from various sectors including technology, education, business, non-profit and community organizations. The board will meet four times per year and communicate through email to exchange ideas.
Board member expected commitments include:
We will not be making any changes to the scope or responsibilities of the CAB until all members are finalized and the group can decide together. Thank you,
Rachel
I’d like to make one broad statement and add two notes concerning this message.
Most broadly... In a recent meeting with Ms. Haot to discuss the Board’s workings, we spoke of the people being invited as members. And I was pleased to learn of the breadth and quality of the invited participants, coming from the fields of urban and regional planning, law, finance, and including an accomplished former ICANN official. While it was pleasing to hear of the Board’s formation, the quality of the invited membership added a level of confidence that the Board might achieve success.
Note 1: As you’ll note from Ms. Haot’s message, the undersigned is one of the invited members to the .NYC Advisory Board. While my education, engagement with the community, and experience would seem to make my selection appropriate (looked at through these biased eyes), one might wish the timing was not so closely related to filing the Objection. Be that as it may, I am giving serious consideration to accepting.
Note 2: The concluding sentence of Ms. Haot’s message references my effort to get a more defined role for the Board now. After consideration I’ve concluded that there is merit to her view of the value to collaboration and look forward to the wisdom of the .NYC Advisory Board members to define its role.
With regard to the .nyc vs. .newyork or .newyorkcity question, with regional perspectives represented on the Board, should the Board’s outreach efforts indicate that an alternative TLD is preferable, I suspect the city and ICANN would give due consideration to the bottom-up process and enable an accommodation.
Sincerely,
Thomas Lowenhaupt, Director
Connecting.nyc Inc.