[NA-Discuss] Inclusion of Individual Internet Users within the City-TLD Multistakeholder Governance Environment
toml at communisphere.com
Thu May 12 16:49:39 UTC 2016
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
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?
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NA-Discuss