[NA-Discuss] Inclusion of Individual Internet Users within the City-TLD Multistakeholder Governance Environment

Louis Houle louis.houle at oricom.ca
Sun Jun 12 22:07:00 UTC 2016

Hi Tom and Alan,

I read the Registry agreement - Paris and didn't find real relevant info:

«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 

Community Registration Policies

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.
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:
The presence in Paris area and use of domain are generally accepted as 
The presence in Paris area and use of domain are conducive to welfare of 
the Paris area.»

Goog evening

Louis Houle
ISOC Quebec
Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec

Le 2016-05-13 à 16:40, Alan Greenberg a écrit :
> 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.
> -- 
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
> On May 13, 2016 4:16:47 PM EDT, Thomas Lowenhaupt 
> <toml at communisphere.com> wrote:
>     Louis,
>     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.
>     What's the best tool for creating a questionnaire these days?
>     Surveymonkey <https://www.surveymonkey.com/> 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?
>     Best,
>     Tom Lowenhaupt
>     On 5/13/2016 2:51 PM, Louis Houle wrote:
>>     Hi Tom,
>>     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? )
>>     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.
>>     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?
>>     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.
>>     Regards
>>     Louis Houle
>>     President
>>     ISOC Quebec
>>     Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec
>>     Le 2016-05-12 12:49, Thomas Lowenhaupt a écrit :
>>>     Joly,
>>>     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:
>>>           * "​But are we? ALS's and individuals can join RALOs, who
>>>             in turn can influence the ALAC, who advise the ICANN board."
>>>     That's correct. And that's what I'm doing right now.
>>>           * "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."
>>>     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.
>>>           * "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.​"
>>>     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.
>>>     Best,
>>>     Tom Lowenhaupt
>>>     On 5/12/2016 1:19 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>>>     On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt
>>>>     <toml at communisphere.com> wrote:
>>>>         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?
>>>>         Tom
>>>>     ​But are we? ALS's and individuals can join RALOs, who inturn
>>>>     can influence the ALAC, who advise the ICANN board.
>>>>     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.
>>>>     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.​
>>>>     ​j​
>>>>     -- 
>>>>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>     Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>>>>     --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>     -
>>>     ------
>>>     NA-Discuss mailing list
>>>     NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>     https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>>>     Visit the NARALO online athttp://www.naralo.org
>>>     ------

-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pi�ce jointe HTML a �t� nettoy�e...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20160612/751eb265/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list