<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Sorry I was answering the phone and the email decided to reach
you without my consent<span class="moz-smiley-s6"><span>:-[</span></span></p>
<p>As you mentioned in a previous email, Alan, the Registry
Agreement did not require public input. The relation with the
community has to be built accordingly. But don't you feel that
something is missing in that governance pattern?</p>
<p><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 18:05, Louis Houle a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:23207841-6bea-1d03-d35d-a196e6288945@oricom.ca"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com"><toml@communisphere.com></a></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
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com">toml@communisphere.com</a></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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>