[NA-Discuss] Inclusion of Individual Internet Users within the City-TLD Multistakeholder Governance Environment
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Jun 14 03:02:48 UTC 2016
You are asking the wrong person about things
missing in governance patterns. I am regularly
displeased with things done by my governments at
all levels. I am occasionally pleasantly
surprised that grass-roots efforts alter those decisions.
In the current case, it is not in ICANN's remit
to ensure good governance of a private or public
enterprise with which it has a contract. Perhaps
*IF* there is a general will, AND *IF* it is
deemed within ICANN's mission, that might be
altered in future TLD allocations (*IF* they were
to occur). Those are several big IFs between here and there.
Alan
At 13/06/2016 06:23 PM, Louis Houle wrote:
>Sorry I was answering the phone and the email
>decided to reach you without my consent:-[
>
>As you mentioned in a previous email, Alan, the
>Registry Agreement did not require public input.
>The relation with the community has to be built
>accordingly. But don't you feel that something
>is missing in that governance pattern?
>
>
>
>Louis Houle
>President
>ISOC Quebec
><mailto:Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec>Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec
>
>Le 2016-06-13 à 18:05, Louis Houle a écrit :
>>
>>Right Alan.
>>
>>My purpose was to search any elements that
>>would relate to the community. How they
>>interact, if they have a proper policy or some
>>guidelines in the agreement, knowing that the
>>city is «sovereign» in its decision making. As
>>I mentioned, I didn't find anything relevant in
>>that sense regarding specific relations with an entity like Communisphere.
>>
>>When I contributed to the DotQuebec
>>application, the multiple Guidebook versions
>>were not so clear on how ICANN would define a
>>community, a linguistic/cultural or a GeoTLD
>>application and how it would impact the
>>registry agreement. To some of us, it might
>>seem obvious but what I understand Tom is
>>probably searching for is a relationship to the
>>community that is upstream, not merely a city/citizens administration.
>>
>>As you mentioned
>>
>>Louis Houle
>>President
>>ISOC Quebec
>><mailto:Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec>Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec
>>
>>Le 2016-06-13 à 15:59, Alan Greenberg a écrit :
>>>.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
>>>><mailto:Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec>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 <mailto:toml at communisphere.com><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?
>>>>><https://www.surveymonkey.com/>Surveymonkey
>>>>>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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><mailto:Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec>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:
>>>>>>> * "âBut 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.
>>>>> * "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.â" 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
>>>>>> <<mailto:toml at communisphere.com>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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> âBut 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.â
>>>>>>
>>>>>> âjâ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <Skype:punkcast>Skype:punkcast
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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>http://www.naralo.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20160613/3b476852/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NA-Discuss
mailing list