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

Louis Houle louis.houle at oricom.ca
Mon Jun 13 22:23:14 UTC 2016

Sorry I was answering the phone and the email decided to reach you 
without my consent:-[

As you mentioned in a previous email, Alan, the Registry Agreement did 
not require public input. The relation with the community has to be 
built accordingly. But don't you feel that something is missing in that 
governance pattern?

Louis Houle
ISOC Quebec
Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec

Le 2016-06-13 à 18:05, Louis Houle a écrit :
> 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> 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 > 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/fd2f1d47/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list