<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">&lt;toml@communisphere.com&gt;</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
                                  &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                    href="mailto:toml@communisphere.com">toml@communisphere.com</a>
                                  &gt; 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>