<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#CCCCCC" text="#000000">
<p>Alan, <br>
</p>
<p>Comments in-line.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/12/2016 1:09 AM, Alan Greenberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:726f49df-6845-41b5-bbd9-9a94d299dd07@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA"
type="cite">
Your question presumes we are all left out of decision making
processes.
I do not agree.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Depends on who "we" is. Typically it those with the time an
resources to participate that steer the decision-making process. And
that seems to hold here.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:726f49df-6845-41b5-bbd9-9a94d299dd07@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA"
type="cite"><br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's a bit of a paradox - for the insider there are too many
meetings. For those outside that process there aren't enough, or at
lease enough accessible meetings (in terms of awareness and time).
It's been my experience that you've got to take this on as a full
time job to be effective. For example, in a PDP-like process
reviewing the new TLD experience I submitted the first comment to
the group recommending that cities applying for TLDs in the future
be required to demonstrate "informed consent." And I commented on
this to the ICANN board of directors at a public meeting (perhaps in
Buenos Aires). By the end of that process I couldn't find mention of
my contribution in the official record (someone said it was in the
appendix, but I couldn't find it). I see there's a new PDP starting
on the process that will likely lead to additional TLDs being issued
to cities. How do I get the ALAC to take up this task on behalf of
IIUs in cities globally?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:726f49df-6845-41b5-bbd9-9a94d299dd07@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA"
type="cite"><br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
But that didn't happen in these instances. 4 changes were made to
the registry agreement without (to my knowledge) a single ALS or IIU
(Individual Internet Users) in New York City aware of the impending
changes or their possible impact and consequences.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:726f49df-6845-41b5-bbd9-9a94d299dd07@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA"
type="cite"><br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The RSEP process was set in 2004 when there was minimal input from
ALAC and zero input from the 8,000,000 residents that comprise the
New York City community. And now that process allows changes to the
registry without any public engagement of the city's IIUs (or
businesses, or schools, or or or). I can see the history of this and
it is all quite normal. But saying that the ALAC can intervene and
giving reasons why it hasn't is hardly reassuring. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:726f49df-6845-41b5-bbd9-9a94d299dd07@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA"
type="cite"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
Some decisions are controlled by contracts and in those cases,
whatever
is in the contract dictates how things happen.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I've been having a conversation with my city council member about
using these to benefit the various immigrant communities. Had
Connecting.nyc Inc. been aware of change request, perhaps some
additional action might have been taken.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:726f49df-6845-41b5-bbd9-9a94d299dd07@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA"
type="cite"><br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
A simple notice about the proposed changes to the agreement and
providing an opportunity to comment should not cripple ICANN's
budget. How do we make this happen?<br>
<br>
Thanks for your thoughts on this matter.<br>
<br>
Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:726f49df-6845-41b5-bbd9-9a94d299dd07@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA"
type="cite"><br>
Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
At 12/05/2016 12:09 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">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?<br>
<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
On 5/11/2016 11:14 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><br>
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Alan Greenberg
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>there is nothing in the current policies that could
compel
.nyc, as a delegated TLD, to adopt such a policy other
than voluntarily.
<br>
<br>
</dd>
</dl>
<br>
​Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response, Alan.<br>
<br>
Tom, it does seem that your efforts might be better directed
at stirring
things up at a local​ 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.<br>
<br>
j<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Joly MacFie <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:218%20565%209365">218 565 9365</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="Skype:punkcast">Skype:punkcast</a><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------<br>
-</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>