[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
President
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