<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#CCCCCC" text="#000000">
<p>Alan,</p>
<p>There are two issues that are getting merged and perhaps confused
here: ICANN's role in issuing TLDs to cities and the ALAC's role.
I'm talking about the latter. Let me explain.</p>
<p>With ICANN: It seems reasonable that when issuing additional TLDs
ICANN should approve their allocation after receiving some form of
"Informed Consent" from the city identified by the TLD sought. The
intention of this consent would be to assure, as much as
practicable, that the governance structure of the city for which
the TLD is sought is aware of the potential and uses of a
city-TLD. If the mayor and council of Las Vegas agree to use the
.vegas TLD to promote gambling and to hell with the public
interest, that's up to them and the voters. In the instance of
.nyc, the city has signed a contract with ICANN to operate the
.nyc TLD for 10 years without what I consider to be informed
consent. And the people of New York will deal with that. Hopefully
we'll convince the city to set up an advisory board for .nyc
similar to the dozens they have for police, sanitation, schools,
transport, air quality...<br>
</p>
<p>With ALAC: Today the individual Internet users in New York City
have no official entity through which they can effectively and
efficiently voice their concerns about the operation of the .nyc
TLD. Perhaps one day they will. In the interim, ICANN is agreeing
to changes to the registry agreement without consulting the city's
individual Internet users. ICANN's by laws (Article XI, Section 2,
4, j, 10) detail the ALAC's responsibility to include: <br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Establishing mechanisms and processes that enable two-way
communication between members of At-Large Structures and those
involved in <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> decision-making, so interested
individuals can share their views on pending <abbr class=""
title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr>
issues."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What I'm asking is that the ALAC work to assure that we, as an At
Large Structure, are informed when changes to the registry
agreement are proposed. I'm asking that ALAC start a formal
process to establish a mechanism and process that enables two-way
communication between members of our At-Large Structure and those
involved in <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> decision-making, so interested
individuals can share their views on pending <abbr class=""
title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr>
issues. <br>
</p>
<p>We'll deal with the informed consent issue at another time.<br>
</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/13/2016 10:55 PM, Alan Greenberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:54513269-54d0-40df-9149-a16e60881ebd@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA"
type="cite">
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 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:
<dl>
<dd>Louis,<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>
</dd>
<dd>Best,<br>
</dd>
<dd>Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
</dd>
<dd>On 5/13/2016 2:51 PM, Louis Houle
wrote:
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">
<dd>Hi Tom,<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>
</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>
</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>
</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>
</dd>
<dd>Regards
</dd>
<dd> <br>
<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
:
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">
<dd><font size="1">Joly,<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."
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</dd>
</blockquote>
</dd>
</blockquote>
<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. </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> <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:</font>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite"
cite=""><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:</font>
</blockquote>
</li>
</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>
<dd><font size="1">Tom</font>
</dd>
</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>
<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>
<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>
<dd>​j​<br>
<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dd>-- <br>
</dd>
<dd>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</dd>
<dd>Joly MacFie 218 565 9365
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="Skype:punkcast">Skype:punkcast</a><br>
</dd>
<dd>--------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</dd>
</font><dd><font size="1">-</font> </dd>
</dl>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
</blockquote>
<font size="1"><br>
</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>
<pre>------
<dd>NA-Discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
</a></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
</dd><dd><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.naralo.org">http://www.naralo.org</a>
</dd><dd>------</dd></pre>
</dd>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>