[NA-Discuss] Inclusion of Individual Internet Users within the City-TLD Multistakeholder Governance Environment

Fri May 13 18:51:15 UTC 2016

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

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:
>
>       * "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.
>
>       * "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> 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
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------

-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pi�ce jointe HTML a �t� nettoy�e...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20160513/25b3a0e9/attachment.html>