[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
Louis,
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?
Best,
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