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

Thomas Lowenhaupt toml at communisphere.com
Fri May 13 20:16:47 UTC 2016


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?


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
> 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:
>>       * "​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 
>>> <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
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>> Visit the NARALO online athttp://www.naralo.org
>> ------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20160513/314fb452/attachment.html>

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list