<html>
<body>
Tom, <br><br>
If there were a ground swell of support for the concept that a geographic
TLD must consult (or listen to) citizens on its geographic region, then
the ALAC could certainly advise that this would be included if and when
there are any new geographic TLDs are allocated. I have little confidence
that this is something that would be accepted by ICANN, as it only
allocates the TLD and according to its mission has little to do with how
it is run. One exception is that if a commitment to do something (or not
do something) is in the TLD contract, then ICANN may be in a position to
ensure that the contract is honoured. <br><br>
Even if ICANN would accept such a requirement to specify how geographic
TLDs are managed, it would not change .nyc as the contracts are already
signed and the only changes in this area that could alter the contract
would be those voluntarily added by the City of New York.<br><br>
If you want to accomplish that, it is in New York that you need to be
convincing people that there is a problem that you can help fix.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 13/06/2016 05:44 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Alan,<br><br>
While I've not completed my research, your conclusion seems to conform to
the city's belief here in New York - that it need not provide a process
for participation by individual Internet users in shaping the use of the
.nyc TLD. Assuming that's the case, that there's no clear responsibility
on the part of ICANN or the registry, what responsibility does the
At-Large have with regard to the needs of individual Internet
users?<br><br>
To me, it would seem ALAC's role is to advise ICANN, politely, that it
botched things with regard to city-TLDs, and to suggest a roadmap for
reengaging individual Internet users with the governance process.
<br>
<br>
Are you in agreement or have I missed something? <br>
<br>
Best,<br><br>
Tom Lowenhaupt<br><br>
On 6/13/2016 3:59 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite 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><br>
<pre>Louis Houle
President
ISOC Quebec
<a 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 href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com"><toml@communisphere.com></a>
wrote:
<dl>
<dd>Louis,<br>
<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>What's the best tool for creating a questionnaire these days?
<a 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>
<dd>Best,<br>
<dd>Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
<dd>On 5/13/2016 2:51 PM, Louis Houle
wrote:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Hi Tom,<br>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<dd>Regards
<dd> <br>
<br><br>
<dd><pre>Louis Houle
<dd>President
<dd>ISOC Quebec
<dd><a href="mailto:Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec">Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec</a>
</pre>
<dd>Le 2016-05-12 12:49, Thomas Lowenhaupt a écrit
:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd><font size=1>Joly,<br>
<dd>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."
</blockquote></blockquote>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul><font size=1>That's correct. And that's what I'm doing right now.
</font>
<ul>
<ul>
<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>
<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.
<ul>
<ul>
<li>"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>
<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>
Best,<br>
Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
On 5/12/2016 1:19 AM, Joly MacFie
wrote:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt
<<a href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com">toml@communisphere.com</a>
> wrote:</font>
</ul>
<dl>
<dl>
<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?</font>
<dd><font size=1>Tom</font>
</dl><font size=1><br>
<dd>​But are we? ALS's and individuals can join RALOs, who inturn can
influence the ALAC, who advise the ICANN board.<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>​j​<br><br>
<br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<dd>Joly MacFie 218 565 9365
<a href="Skype:punkcast">Skype:punkcast</a><br>
<dd>--------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<dd>-</font> </blockquote><font size=1><br>
</font><br><br>
<br><br>
<dd><pre>------
<dd>NA-Discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
<dd>NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss</a>
<dd>Visit the NARALO online at
<dd><a href="http://www.naralo.org">http://www.naralo.org</a>
<dd>------</pre></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
</dl>
</dl>
</dl>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>