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

Mon May 16 19:48:16 UTC 2016

On 16 May 2016 at 04:52, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml at communisphere.com> wrote:

> Following up on the recent exchange here on NARALO Discuss, concerning the
> 4 changes to New York City's .nyc registry agreement, and my belief that
> modification to the extant operating processes were in order, today I
> reviewed the ICANN By-Laws
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#XI> as they
> relate to ALAC responsibilities. And it seems apparent that more should be
> done to keep New York City's individual Internet users informed and engaged
> about ICANN activities.
>
I fervently disagree, both that "more should be done" and even defining
what that "more" is.

This is getting tiring. Every so often we see raised the issue of
community involvement in .nyc. Every time the challenges, problems and bad
assumption identified in the grievance is ignored. Then the discussion just
drops, only to come back some time later raise the issue again as if it's
brand new.

I base this conclusion on my reading of Article XI, subsection 2.4.j which
> lists 10 resp
> o
> nsibilities of ALAC. If one considers responsibilities 2, 4, 5, 6, and
> 10, one is likely to conclude that something fell through the cracks
> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fall_through_the_cracks> in the 4
> instances where the registry agreement was changed and the city's
> individual Internet users were not informed.
>
> Quoting the ICANN bylaws is FAR from enough. I've been extremely close to
those bylaws and have frequently made the case that ALAC under-utilized its
authority on a number of occasions.

This is not one of those occasions.

> Think about it... Between December 1, 2014 and March 31, 2016 four (4) changes
> were made to the .nyc registry agreement
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/nyc-2014-01-23-en>. No effort
> was made to inform New York City's individual Internet users about these
> changes or their possible impact.
>

I thought about it. For a long time, a long time ago.

BIG DEAL.

I looked at the changes. They apply to the use of two-letter second-level
domains and the collection of additional information on registrants to
verify their legitimacy to use the domain.

> 
> After reading clauses 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 does anyone disagree with my
> conclusion, that more should be done to keep New York City's individual
> Internet users informed and engaged about ICANN activities?
>

Specifically, what in the proposed changes does the end-user community of
New York City (meaning some group of people significant larger then you
alone) have a problem with?

If your problem is with process rather than substance,  it is my opinion
that you're wasting our time. The registry for .nyc is the city government
of New York, governed by elected representatives.

Moreover, previously when you have raised issued related to .nyc you refuse
to answer core questions that challenge what are IMO poor assumptions, and
your refusal to provide satisfactory answers has crippled the credibility
of your cause.

   - Given that you've been around the process for a while, you know that
   ALAC is a global body and its advice to ICANN is not country- (let alone
   city-)specific. Why, then, have you made no effort to engage in joint
   activity with other communities where city-TLDs exist, in order to
   facilitate creation of policy adaptable to a worldwide community?

   - If the effort has been made but no similar issues have been found at
   other cities with their own TLDs, that begs a different question: what's so
   special about the problems with .nyc, that makes it sufficiently worthy to
   demand attention from other regions and the global ALAC? In both theory and
   practice, ALAC advice to the Board is neither domain specific nor region
   specific.

   - After years of asking, I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the
   question "what is the end-user community interest, specifically, in the
   .nyc domain, that could not be served through a second-level domain?" 

If there 's no disagreement, how do we move ahead to assure that ALAC
> responsibilities, as spelled out in Article XI of ICANN's By-Laws,  are
> appropriately adhered to in the future?
>

Consider disagreement had.

Tom, you've also been here long enough to know that ALAC volunteers are
stretched beyond belief in just taking care of real fires. Since you appear
to know the bylaws and ALAC's role so well, why don't you *propose*
something rather than merely expect others to fight your battles for you?

In any case.... until you can demonstrate that (a) this is a globally
relevant problem and (b) it indeed harms end users and (c) creative
solutions have been tried and failed .... this is not yet NARALO's (let
alone ALAC's) battle.

Apologies to readers for what may have come across as overly harsh. But I'm
honestly tired of this issue repeatedly advancing and receding, each time
draining critical human energy better directed elsewhere.

-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Geneva, CH

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20160516/c467ec92/attachment-0001.html>