[NA-Discuss] Inclusion of Individual Internet Users within the City-TLD Multistakeholder Governance Environment
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu May 12 05:09:43 UTC 2016
Your question presumes we are all left out of
decision making processes. I do not agree.
ICANN holds many public consultations where
anyone may provide input and be considered. Some
people have claimed there are too many such
consultations. In addition to any individual or
organization's ability to submit comments, the
ALAC often does on behalf of the At-Large Community.
The ALAC is empowered to provide advice on any
subject at any time. And when an issue arises
that the ALAC feels deserves such treatment we do
so. And in many and probably most cases, there is
an opportunity for our entire community to
participate in the development of the advice.
In other decisions, there is an established
policy that guides how that decision is made. The
RSEP process is one such example. The
multistakeholder (MS) community was the source of
that policy, and once adopted (and until it is
changed by a MS process), it is followed. That
policy allows for community input in some cases,
and in others it was decided (by the community)
that input on individual application of the
policy was not needed. The RSEP policy could be
altered if there was a general perception that it
is broken or was no longer appropriate.
As another example of this, the 2010 round of New
gTLD Applications was governed by an immense set
of policies and procedures as described in the
Applicant Guide Book. An applicant, by making an
application agreed to abide by the rules, and
ICANN, in accepting the fee, also agreed to such
rules. Among them was that once a complex set of
criteria was met, ICANN would sign a Registry
Agreement with the applicant. There was a lot of
public involvement at many stages, but the actual
signing of a contract did not (according to the
rules establish with the overall community) did not require public input.
Some decisions are controlled by contracts and in
those cases, whatever is in the contract dictates how things happen.
The release of two character strings at the 2nd
level in new gTLDs was the subject of significant
public comment, but was also subject to the
agreement of the country or territory that has
that string as a ccTLD-type string.
It is within the realm of possibility that ICANN
could adopt a policy by which every single
contract and contract amendment. I am pretty sure
there would not be a lot of support for such a
proposition, and there would be a high cost of
implementing it. But it could happen if there
were a general will to make it so.
Alan
At 12/05/2016 12:09 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt 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
>
>On 5/11/2016 11:14 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>
>>On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Alan
>>Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>there is nothing in the current policies that
>>could compel .nyc, as a delegated TLD, to adopt
>>such a policy other than voluntarily.
>>
>>
>>âThanks for your thoughtful and detailed response, Alan.
>>
>>Tom, it does seem that your efforts might be
>>better directed at stirring things up at a
>>localâ level, but I think there has to be
>>perceptible pain to get any movement.The
>>tradeoffs between privacy, WHOIS and the nexus
>>requirement might be a source of such pain.
>>Currently, since proxy addresses are forbidden
>>under the nexus policy, no private citizen in
>>NYC can register a .nyc domain with revealing
>>their personal address via WHOIS. The
>>allocation and oversight of neighborhood
>>reserved names, as per your recent meetup, is another.
>>
>>j
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>Joly MacFie <tel:218%20565%209365>218 565 9365
>><Skype:punkcast>Skype:punkcast
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20160512/1cff53e2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NA-Discuss
mailing list