[NA-Discuss] Inclusion of Individual Internet Users within the City-TLD Multistakeholder Governance Environment
Thomas Lowenhaupt
toml at communisphere.com
Mon Jun 13 21:44:51 UTC 2016
Alan,
While I've not completed my research, your conclusion seems to conform
to the city's belief here in New York - that it need not provide a
process for participation by individual Internet users in shaping the
use of the .nyc TLD. Assuming that's the case, that there's no clear
responsibility on the part of ICANN or the registry, what responsibility
does the At-Large have with regard to the needs of individual Internet
users?
To me, it would seem ALAC's role is to advise ICANN, politely, that it
botched things with regard to city-TLDs, and to suggest a roadmap for
reengaging individual Internet users with the governance process.
Are you in agreement or have I missed something?
Best,
Tom Lowenhaupt
On 6/13/2016 3:59 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> .paris is a community TLD, and thus subject to the control of the
> designated community. However, according to the TLD application, the
> "City of Paris" is deemed to be the representative of that community.
> So it is completely internal to the City of Paris how it implements
> any control or other input from Paris residents and businesses.
>
> This, for all practical purposes, puts it in the same status as .nyc
> (which did not apply as a "Community" TLD. Any rules it puts in place,
> or does not put in place, which gives some level of control or review
> to NYC residents or businesses is solely up to the city administration.
>
> Alan
>
> At 12/06/2016 06:07 PM, Louis Houle wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom and Alan,
>>
>> I read the Registry agreement - Paris and didn't find real relevant info:
>>
>> «7.8 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement will not be
>> construed to create any obligation by either ICANN or Registry
>> Operator to any non-party to this Agreement, including any registrar
>> or registered name holder.
>>
>> Community Registration Policies
>>
>> Registry Operator shall implement and comply with all community
>> registration policies described below and/or attached to this
>> Specification 12. In the event Specification 12 conflicts with the
>> requirements of any other provision of the Registry Agreement, such
>> other provision shall govern.
>> Two types of conditions must be fulfilled for the right to register a
>> TLD name. These are: (A) community membership (bona fide presence in
>> the Paris area) and (B) the additional requirements that:
>> The presence in Paris area and use of domain are generally accepted
>> as legitimate.
>> The presence in Paris area and use of domain are conducive to welfare
>> of the Paris area.»
>>
>> Goog evening
>>
>>
>> Louis Houle
>> President
>> ISOC Quebec
>> Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec <mailto:Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec>
>>
>> Le 2016-05-13 à 16:40, Alan Greenberg a écrit :
>>> As a first step, perhaps you should look at all of the application
>>> forms and registry agreements, particularly for those that are
>>> Community TLDs, and see what they committed to.
>>> --
>>> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>>>
>>> On May 13, 2016 4:16:47 PM EDT, Thomas Lowenhaupt
>>> <toml at communisphere.com> <mailto:toml at communisphere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Louis,
>>>
>>> It certainly would be good to know the level of engagement for
>>> IIUs in Paris and the other newly TLD'd cities. Perhaps the
>>> At-Large could craft a questionnaire to gather the state of
>>> affairs, to be distributed as widely as practicable. Certainly
>>> one might imagine excellent penetration in those cities with
>>> ALSes. From there we might develop a report of use to many.
>>>
>>> What's the best tool for creating a questionnaire these days?
>>> Surveymonkey <https://www.surveymonkey.com/> seems to be priced
>>> right? Anyone with experience in this area? Is there a better
>>> alternative? Are there others in the ICANN community that might
>>> be interested in a project of this sort?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Tom Lowenhaupt
>>>
>>> On 5/13/2016 2:51 PM, Louis Houle wrote:
>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>> Why is the situation rather opaque in .NYC. Because
>>>> inclusiveness is not promoted ? Because transparency is not
>>>> an integrated process in the pratices of the management
>>>> team (the meetings are held behind closed doors? )
>>>>
>>>> Governments obey to a set of rules and processes that they
>>>> control. This includes the input or contribution from third
>>>> parties regarding the direction to follow the management
>>>> approach, etc. I understand that this the situation that
>>>> you're cought with.
>>>>
>>>> Your suggestion to get ICANN on board is certainly
>>>> appropriate. Is it the only approach for you to advocate
>>>> for a governance process for NYC? I don't know if other
>>>> city TLD are facing a similar situation as the one you
>>>> described. For instance, Dot-Paris is managed by the city
>>>> under the authority of the mayer. Would it be useful to
>>>> document how they address governance issues including the
>>>> multistakeholder model ? Would it be useful to get the
>>>> GeoTLD Interest Group on board also?
>>>>
>>>> At Dot-Quebec, the Board adopted a very openned governance
>>>> approach. Anybody who can contribute is welcome, but it's a
>>>> not-for-profit organisation. It's not lead by the
>>>> government even though we received a financial and
>>>> political support for the project. We support the
>>>> multistakeholder model but for the new members of the
>>>> Board, it needs to be explained. We have people with
>>>> various and strong CV, but mostly no ICANN experience for
>>>> some of them. Knowledge sharing is useful then, but it is
>>>> still necessary to have a partner who is willing to listen.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Louis Houle
>>>>
>>>> President
>>>> ISOC Quebec
>>>> Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec <mailto:Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec>
>>>> Le 2016-05-12 12:49, Thomas Lowenhaupt a écrit :
>>>>> Joly,
>>>>>
>>>>> In response to my post contending that the
>>>>> multistakeholder model was not effectively meeting the
>>>>> needs of individual Internet users (IIUs) in New York
>>>>> City you said:
>>>>>
>>>>> o "​But are we? ALS's and individuals can join
>>>>> RALOs, who in turn can influence the ALAC, who
>>>>> advise the ICANN board."
>>>>>
>>> That's correct. And that's what I'm doing right now.
>>>
>>> o "Or do you mean locally? Well, we elect our
>>> representatives on the NYC City Council, who are subject
>>> to their constituents, at least in theory."
>>> Following that line of thought we really don't need
>>> a city council or mayor at all. After all, we also
>>> have a democratically elected congress and
>>> president. Why bother with city government? Just
>>> call your congress member about the pothole, garbage
>>> pickup, or idea for a park improvement. And indeed
>>> you can. But my congress member represents about
>>> 700,000 people and avers to the local council member
>>> who represents 160,000 residents. He has close ties,
>>> that include budgetary control, with the local
>>> service providers - the pothole fillers, sanitation
>>> and parks departments. So for local service delivery
>>> issues it's better to go local. And in this
>>> instance, with .nyc, I think we have agreed to go
>>> down one more layer and engage the stakeholders in
>>> the process. And indeed, ICANN talks bottom-up and
>>> multistakeholder. Minimally, minimally, ICANN could
>>> send a notification to the local ALSs when a city
>>> registry agreement change is proposed. And it would
>>> seem reasonable to provide the opportunity for that
>>> ALS to respond, and for that response to be
>>> considered. One might argue that it is the ALS's
>>> responsibility to keep an eye on ICANN's activities.
>>> And that's a good idea. And I support and look
>>> forward to the day when we're provided by ICANN with
>>> a budget to hire a staff member for that task. But
>>> for now it seems ICANN's generating a letter about
>>> proposed changes to the registry agreement is the
>>> simpler way to go.
>>> # "There was an advisory board for .nyc. It
>>> hardly met, and the meetings it had were
>>> closed. You were on it. It could've done
>>> something to break its chains if the will
>>> was there, surely.​"
>>> As I recall the situation, the city
>>> created the advisory board under duress
>>> - there was a challenge to their .nyc
>>> application from Connecting.nyc Inc.
>>> After the .NYC Community Advisory
>>> Board's creation the city retained tight
>>> control over its operation. It appointed
>>> members, scheduled the meetings, and set
>>> the agenda. I informed media-types about
>>> the meetings, but they were excluded by
>>> the representatives of the mayor.
>>> Additionally, even city officials were
>>> excluded. Council member Gale Brewer's
>>> representative, whom I invited, was told
>>> to leave the room when he showed up. And
>>> as I mentioned previously, when they
>>> abolished it on December 31, 2014 they
>>> wiped out any sign of its existence from
>>> its website. But you're right, those
>>> chains probably could have been broken
>>> short of self-immolation. I just never
>>> figured out how. Where are we now? While
>>> we've taken a hit with the abolition of
>>> the .NYC Community Advisory Board, I'm
>>> still trying to get a governance process
>>> started where IIUs can meaningfully
>>> participate in a governance process. My
>>> latest thought is to get ICANN, via the
>>> ALSs, on board and advocating for a
>>> multistakeholder governance process, one
>>> that includes IIUs. Any thoughts on how
>>> to achieve this are most welcomed.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Tom Lowenhaupt
>>>
>>> On 5/12/2016 1:19 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:09 AM,
>>>> Thomas Lowenhaupt
>>>> <toml at communisphere.com
>>>> <mailto:toml at communisphere.com> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point I'm trying to make
>>>> is: If we've all accepted the
>>>> multistakeholder model, how is
>>>> it that the local ALSes and
>>>> individual Internet users
>>>> (residents and organizations as
>>>> well) are left out of the
>>>> decision making process?
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ​But are we? ALS's and
>>>> individuals can join RALOs, who
>>>> inturn can influence the ALAC, who
>>>> advise the ICANN board.
>>>>
>>>> Or do you mean locally? Well, we
>>>> elect our representatives on the
>>>> NYC City Council, who are subject
>>>> to their constituents, at least in
>>>> theory.
>>>>
>>>> There was an advisory board for
>>>> .nyc. It hardly met, and the
>>>> meetings it had were closed. You
>>>> were on it. It could've done
>>>> something to break its chains if
>>>> the will was there, surely.​
>>>>
>>>> ​j​
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365
>>>> Skype:punkcast
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------
>>>
>>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> <mailto:NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>>>
>>> Visit the NARALO online at
>>> http://www.naralo.org
>>> ------
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20160613/5a1f4dd9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NA-Discuss
mailing list