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

Fri May 13 20:40:29 UTC 2016

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> 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
>>
>> 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 athttp://www.naralo.org
>>> ------
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20160513/09ecce39/attachment-0001.html>