<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Right Alan.</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>As you mentioned <br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Louis Houle
President
ISOC Quebec
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec">Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec</a>
</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 2016-06-13 à 15:59, Alan Greenberg a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:e495b6da-c36f-4f95-8b0c-84c13e26f545@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA"
type="cite">
.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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 12/06/2016 06:07 PM, Louis Houle wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Hi Tom and Alan,<br>
<br>
I read the Registry agreement - Paris and didn't find real
relevant
info:<br>
<br>
«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.<br>
<br>
Community Registration Policies<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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:<br>
The presence in Paris area and use of domain are generally
accepted as
legitimate. <br>
The presence in Paris area and use of domain are conducive to
welfare of
the Paris area.»<br>
<br>
Goog evening<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre>Louis Houle
President
ISOC Quebec
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec">Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec</a>
</pre>
Le 2016-05-13 à 16:40, Alan Greenberg a écrit :<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">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.<br>
-- <br>
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<br>
<br>
On May 13, 2016 4:16:47 PM EDT, Thomas Lowenhaupt
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com"><toml@communisphere.com></a>
wrote: <br>
<dl>
<br>
<dd>Louis,<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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. <br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>What's the best tool for creating a questionnaire these
days?
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/">Surveymonkey</a>
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?<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>Best,<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>On 5/13/2016 2:51 PM, Louis Houle wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">
<dd>Hi Tom,<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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? )<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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?<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>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.<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>Regards<br>
</dd>
<dd> <br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>
<pre>Louis Houle
<dd>President
</dd><dd>ISOC Quebec
</dd><dd><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec">Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec</a>
</dd></pre>
</dd>
<dd>Le 2016-05-12 12:49, Thomas Lowenhaupt a écrit :<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">
<dd><font size="1">Joly,<br>
<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">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:</font>
<ul>
<ul>
<li>"​But are we? ALS's and individuals can
join RALOs, who in
turn can influence the ALAC, who advise the
ICANN board." <br>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</dd>
</blockquote>
</dd>
</blockquote>
</dd>
</dl>
<dd><font size="1">That's correct. And that's what I'm doing
right now.
</font>
<ul>
<font size="1">
</font>
<ul>
<font size="1">
</font>
<li><font size="1">"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."</font> <br>
<dd><font size="1">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. </font>
<ul>
<font size="1">
</font>
<ul>
<font size="1">
</font>
<li><font size="1">"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.​"</font> <br>
<dd><font size="1">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.<br>
<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">Best,<br>
<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">On 5/12/2016 1:19 AM, Joly
MacFie wrote:<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font
size="1"><br>
</font><dd><font size="1">On Thu, May 12,
2016 at 12:09 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com">toml@communisphere.com</a>
> wrote:<br>
</font>
<dl>
<br>
<dd><font size="1">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>
</font><br>
</dd>
<dd><font size="1">Tom<br>
</font><br>
</dd>
</dl>
<font size="1"><br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">​But are we? ALS's
and individuals can join RALOs, who
inturn can
influence the ALAC, who advise the
ICANN board.<br>
<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">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.<br>
<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">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.​<br>
<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">​j​<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">-- <br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">Joly MacFie 218 565
9365
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="Skype:punkcast">Skype:punkcast</a><br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">--------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</font></dd>
<dd><font size="1">-</font></dd>
</blockquote>
<font size="1"><br>
</font><br>
<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>
<pre>------
<dd>NA-Discuss mailing list
</dd><dd><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
</dd><dd>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss</a>
</dd><dd>Visit the NARALO online at
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.naralo.org">http://www.naralo.org</a>
</dd><dd>------</dd></pre>
</dd>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</dd>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</dd>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>