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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Jun 14 03:02:48 UTC 2016

You are asking the wrong person about things 
missing in governance patterns. I am regularly 
displeased with things done by my governments at 
all levels. I am occasionally pleasantly 
surprised that grass-roots efforts alter those decisions.

In the current case, it is not in ICANN's remit 
to ensure good governance of a private or public 
enterprise with which it has a contract. Perhaps 
*IF* there is a general will, AND *IF* it is 
deemed within ICANN's mission, that might be 
altered in future TLD allocations (*IF* they were 
to occur). Those are several big IFs between here and there.


At 13/06/2016 06:23 PM, Louis Houle wrote:

>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
><mailto:Louis.Houle at 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
>>ISOC Quebec
>><mailto:Louis.Houle at 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.
>>>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.
>>>>>        Best,
>>>>>        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?
>>>>>>        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>Skype:punkcast
>>>>>>        --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>        -
>>>>>    ------
>>>>>    NA-Discuss mailing list
>>>>>    <mailto:NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>>>    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>http://www.naralo.org
>>>>>    ------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20160613/3b476852/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list