On 13 June 2016 at 23:44, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml@communisphere.com> wrote:

While I've not completed my research, your conclusion seems to conform to the city's belief here in New York - that it need not provide a process for participation by individual Internet users in shaping the use of the .nyc TLD.

That is absolutely untrue, unless New York and Paris are governed by self-appointing dictatorships.

If they are like most cities, over and above the regular high-level governance votes, there are certain levels of community participation in garbage collection, green spaces, parking regulations, urban planning, etc. If such processes exist they offer the (at least indirect) way to influence the cities' policies regarding their TLDs (though I would suggest that the other issues I mentioned are higher up the priority list of most citizens).

The case has yet to be made that pubic input into how cities run their TLDs is more pressing and important than, say policing.

Assuming that's the case, that there's no clear responsibility on the part of ICANN or the registry, what responsibility does the At-Large have with regard to the needs of individual Internet users?

In these cases, ALAC has zero input post-delegation unless the registry can be found in breach of its agreement with ICANN.

To me, it would seem ALAC's role is to advise ICANN, politely, that it botched things with regard to city-TLDs, and to suggest a roadmap for reengaging individual Internet users with the governance process.

This grievance claims to speak for issues related to all city gTLDs, yet after years and years and years at this tired complaint we have yet to hear from a single other city community that shares this issue. There is no other conclusion except that this clearly is not a globally applicable problem; ALAC should not get involved, instead leaving the discussion to the appropriate RALO for local handling if any.

Are you in agreement or have I missed something?

A great much has been missed. But after so many failed attempts at re-raising the issue and refusal to address even basic answers and challenges, there is little conclusion but that the "missing something" is not only real but deliberate,

And, once again, no there is no agreement. Not to this.

- Evan