It's an interesting question.
What makes me wonder about the success of the new gTLD, for
cities and other big placenames, is the fact that there is a 3 digit
minimum on identities, i.e. it starts at e.g. ".nyc". I don't think
anyone doubts that the abbreviation/acronym for New York City
(.nyc) is more desirable than '.newyorkcity".
There are many famous placenames around the world, however,
that have their acronym at the 2 letter level, e.g. in the case of
Los Angeles, that would be .la.
But Los Angeles could not have their ".la" identity because there
is already a
www.la domain in existence, and it's being used as
the .la name registry. That domain is a 'www' +ccTLD name, and
it makes me think about the value of domains like this, when:
1. The restrictions on the gTLD do not apply to them.
2. They do not have to pay the $180K min application fee.
3. The perception will be that they are the same as the gTLD, and
are perhaps even a rarefied version of them!
But, anyway, I say that other cities will follow suit, but there will
be some that are disappointed and the ones that have their city
or company acronym at the 2 letter level will go after a 'normal'
www.xx name ...and save themselves a shedload of cash, and not
be restricted by gTLD rules.
Cheers,
