[NA-Discuss] Inclusion of Individual Internet Users within the City-TLD Multistakeholder Governance Environment
louis.houle at oricom.ca
Fri May 13 20:46:32 UTC 2016
Maybe the staff could suggest another tool if Surveymonkey isn't OK.
It's the most popular according to worldstream:
Louis.Houle at isoc.quebec
Le 2016-05-13 16:16, Thomas Lowenhaupt a écrit :
> 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.
>> Louis Houle
>> 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,
>>> 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.
>>> 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?
>>>> 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
>>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> Visit the NARALO online athttp://www.naralo.org
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pi�ce jointe HTML a �t� nettoy�e...
More information about the NA-Discuss