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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Jun 13 19:59:02 UTC 2016

.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.

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.


At 12/06/2016 06:07 PM, Louis Houle wrote:

>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 holder.
>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 legitimate.
>The presence in Paris area and use of domain are 
>conducive to welfare of the Paris area.»
>Goog evening
>Louis Houle
>ISOC Quebec
><mailto:Louis.Houle at 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 <mailto:toml at communisphere.com><toml at communisphere.com> wrote:
>>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? 
>>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?
>>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.
>>>Louis Houle
>>>ISOC Quebec
>>><mailto:Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec>Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec
>>>Le 2016-05-12 12:49, Thomas Lowenhaupt a écrit :
>>>>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.
>>>>Tom Lowenhaupt
>>>>On 5/12/2016 1:19 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Thomas 
>>>>>Lowenhaupt <<mailto:toml at communisphere.com>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?
>>>>>​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.​
>>>>>Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 <Skype:punkcast>Skype:punkcast
>>>>NA-Discuss mailing list
>>>><mailto:NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>Visit the NARALO online at <http://www.naralo.org>http://www.naralo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20160613/a297642a/attachment.html>

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list