June 14, 2016
3:02 a.m.
You are asking the wrong person about things missing in governance patterns. I am regularly displeased with things done by my governments at all levels. I am occasionally pleasantly surprised that grass-roots efforts alter those decisions. In the current case, it is not in ICANN's remit to ensure good governance of a private or public enterprise with which it has a contract. Perhaps *IF* there is a general will, AND *IF* it is deemed within ICANN's mission, that might be altered in future TLD allocations (*IF* they were to occur). Those are several big IFs between here and there. Alan At 13/06/2016 06:23 PM, Louis Houle wrote: >Sorry I was answering the phone and the email >decided to reach you without my consent:-[ > >As you mentioned in a previous email, Alan, the >Registry Agreement did not require public input. >The relation with the community has to be built >accordingly. But don't you feel that something >is missing in that governance pattern? > > > >Louis Houle >President >ISOC Quebec ><mailto:Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec>Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec > >Le 2016-06-13 à 18:05, Louis Houle a écrit : >> >>Right Alan. >> >>My purpose was to search any elements that >>would relate to the community. How they >>interact, if they have a proper policy or some >>guidelines in the agreement, knowing that the >>city is «sovereign» in its decision making. As >>I mentioned, I didn't find anything relevant in >>that sense regarding specific relations with an entity like Communisphere. >> >>When I contributed to the DotQuebec >>application, the multiple Guidebook versions >>were not so clear on how ICANN would define a >>community, a linguistic/cultural or a GeoTLD >>application and how it would impact the >>registry agreement. To some of us, it might >>seem obvious but what I understand Tom is >>probably searching for is a relationship to the >>community that is upstream, not merely a city/citizens administration. >> >>As you mentioned >> >>Louis Houle >>President >>ISOC Quebec >><mailto:Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec>Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec >> >>Le 2016-06-13 à 15:59, Alan Greenberg a écrit : >>>.paris is a community TLD, and thus subject to >>>the control of the designated community. >>>However, according to the TLD application, the >>>"City of Paris" is deemed to be the >>>representative of that community. So it is >>>completely internal to the City of Paris how >>>it implements any control or other input from Paris residents and businesses. >>> >>>This, for all practical purposes, puts it in >>>the same status as .nyc (which did not apply >>>as a "Community" TLD. Any rules it puts in >>>place, or does not put in place, which gives >>>some level of control or review to NYC >>>residents or businesses is solely up to the city administration. >>> >>>Alan >>> >>>At 12/06/2016 06:07 PM, Louis Houle wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Tom and Alan, >>>> >>>>I read the Registry agreement - Paris and didn't find real relevant info: >>>> >>>>«7.8 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This >>>>Agreement will not be construed to create any >>>>obligation by either ICANN or Registry >>>>Operator to any non-party to this Agreement, >>>>including any registrar or registered name holder. >>>> >>>>Community Registration Policies >>>> >>>>Registry Operator shall implement and comply >>>>with all community registration policies >>>>described below and/or attached to this >>>>Specification 12. In the event Specification >>>>12 conflicts with the requirements of any >>>>other provision of the Registry Agreement, such other provision shall govern. >>>>Two types of conditions must be fulfilled for >>>>the right to register a TLD name. These >>>>are: (A) community membership (bona fide >>>>presence in the Paris area) and (B) the additional requirements that: >>>>The presence in Paris area and use of domain >>>>are generally accepted as legitimate. >>>>The presence in Paris area and use of domain >>>>are conducive to welfare of the Paris area.» >>>> >>>>Goog evening >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Louis Houle >>>>President >>>>ISOC Quebec >>>><mailto:Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec>Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec >>>> >>>>Le 2016-05-13 à 16:40, Alan Greenberg a écrit : >>>>>As a first step, perhaps you should look at >>>>>all of the application forms and registry >>>>>agreements, particularly for those that are >>>>>Community TLDs, and see what they committed to. >>>>>-- >>>>>Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. >>>>> >>>>>On May 13, 2016 4:16:47 PM EDT, Thomas >>>>>Lowenhaupt <mailto:toml@communisphere.com><toml@communisphere.com> wrote: >>>>>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? >>>>><https://www.surveymonkey.com/>Surveymonkey >>>>>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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>><mailto:Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec>Louis.Houle@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: >>>>>>> * "âBut 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.â" 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 >>>>>> <<mailto:toml@communisphere.com>toml@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 >>>>>> >>>>>> âBut 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.â >>>>>> >>>>>> âjâ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <Skype:punkcast>Skype:punkcast >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>>>> >>>>> <mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>>> >>>>> NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Visit the NARALO online at >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.naralo.org>http://www.naralo.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------