Steve and Fellow gnso-newgtld-dg List Members,

I've a comment on the 26 May 2015 - Clean report.
Informed Consent
On August 21, 2014 I submitted to the discussion group a comment "Considering Informed Consent for City-TLD Applicants" - see here. It urged that a stronger standard than "non-objection" be sought for future city-TLD applicants. The suggestion was that we craft an "informed consent" standard for cities seeking a TLD, and that we draw upon other sectors such as medical and resource management in developing that standard.

In the 26 May report I don't find language adequately representing the suggestion. The only entry that might possibly relate is in Group 1 under "Community engagement." This reader was unclear if the community referenced there was the ICANN or applying community (i.e., city).

As I've only had the opportunity to participate in perhaps half the meetings, I might have missed a pertinent discussion, or I might be overlooking a relevant entry in the otherwise excellent Report. If it's not already there I'd suggest including the following in Group 1:
City TLDs: How can ICANN be assured that applications for city-TLDs have been developed with the informed consent of the city's residents, organizations, and other stakeholders?
It might also be appropriate to recommend that this standard be considered for applications for other geographic regions and gTLDs. However, I'm not sufficiently aware of those situations and speak here specifically on behalf of city-TLDs, about which I some relevant knowledge.
Discussion Group Comments
My August Informed Consent post elicited one response of which I am aware. It noted on September 3, 2014:
"The first city-TLD applications are on the market only a short time now, but so far I have heard no complaints from those entities that submitted a letter of non-objections."

Having been intimately involved with the .nyc TLD for many years, I can report on some aspects of the situation here in New York City.

On May 15, 2015 Mayor de Blasio issued a  press release concerning .nyc that identified it as the "Fastest Growing City Domain." The release claimed "In only six short months, .nyc has become a thriving online community where small businesses, organizations and entrepreneurs across the five boroughs are prospering."

The mayor's statement was released during a period in which our organization was requesting information about the identity of those who have purchased .nyc names. We are seeking to identify some metrics for assessing the impact .nyc is having on our city. Our request for anonymized registrant data was refused. And last week we were forced to file a request for registrant information using the state's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).

It's my belief that, had there been a requirement for informed consent, the city's stakeholders would have participated in developing the application for the .nyc TLD. And from that participation clear metrics for its success would have emerged, and the mayor could have spoken about the success of the TLD using them.

The September 3 comment noted that no complaints had been filed about .nyc's operation. With a near total lack of transparency on the TLD's operation, I've still not heard of a complaint. But the TLD's operation has become so opaque that I've no idea where such a complaint would be filed. And the city is certainly not sharing reports on any such filings. That might be the topic of our next FOIL request.  

Sincerely,

Thomas Lowenhaupt

P.S. Until December 31, 2014 there was an advisory board which provided a modicum of access to the planning and development of the .nyc TLD. But the .NYC Community Advisory Board was disbanded with the arrival of the New Year and nothing has replaced it.


On 5/26/2015 9:00 PM, Steve Chan wrote:
Dear DG Members,

For those that were able to join today’s call, thank you for your participation and feedback. I have incorporated the changes discussed on the call, which includes adding specific draft text to the charter related to the global public interest and compliance. I’ve also integrated recent feedback received to the email list. The executive summary, matrix, and charter have been combined in the single attached document with all changes accepted, and I have added some elements to make the draft more formal.

Here is a link to the various iterations of the drafts on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. You will find this latest document at the very top of the page underneath the heading DRAFT Full Deliverables. Please share with your respective groups for their review and feedback if applicable and note, the co-chairs hope to have all comments/suggestions received by 5 June 2015 at the latest. 
Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,



Steven Chan
Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan@icann.org

direct: +1.310.301.3886
mobile: +1.310.339.4410

tel: +1.310.301.5800

fax: +1.310.823.8649



_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg