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

Louis Houle louis.houle at oricom.ca
Mon Jun 13 22:05:15 UTC 2016

Right Alan.

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.

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.

As you mentioned

Louis Houle
ISOC Quebec
Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec

Le 2016-06-13 à 15:59, Alan Greenberg a écrit :
> .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.
> Alan
> 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
>> President
>> ISOC Quebec
>> Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec <mailto: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> <mailto: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 <mailto: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:
>>>>>                   o "​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.
>>>           o "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
>>>>                                 <mailto: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
>>>                                 <mailto:NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>                                 https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>>>                                 Visit the NARALO online at
>>>                                 http://www.naralo.org 
>>>                                 ------

-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pi?ce jointe HTML a ?t? nettoy?e...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20160613/6f2600f7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list