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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri May 13 20:40:29 UTC 2016

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:
>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
>a questionnaire to gather the state of affairs, to be distributed as 
>widely as practicable. Certainly one might imagine excellent
>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
>> 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
>>> not effectively meeting the needs of individual Internet users
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> park improvement. And indeed you can. But my congress member 
>>> represents about 700,000 people and avers to the local council
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> a staff member for that task. But for now it seems ICANN's
>>> 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
>>>         meetings it had were closed. You were on it. It could've
>>>         something to break its chains if the will was there,
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 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/20160513/09ecce39/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list