Your question presumes we are all left out of decision making processes. I do not agree. ICANN holds many public consultations where anyone may provide input and be considered. Some people have claimed there are too many such consultations. In addition to any individual or organization's ability to submit comments, the ALAC often does on behalf of the At-Large Community. The ALAC is empowered to provide advice on any subject at any time. And when an issue arises that the ALAC feels deserves such treatment we do so. And in many and probably most cases, there is an opportunity for our entire community to participate in the development of the advice. In other decisions, there is an established policy that guides how that decision is made. The RSEP process is one such example. The multistakeholder (MS) community was the source of that policy, and once adopted (and until it is changed by a MS process), it is followed. That policy allows for community input in some cases, and in others it was decided (by the community) that input on individual application of the policy was not needed. The RSEP policy could be altered if there was a general perception that it is broken or was no longer appropriate. As another example of this, the 2010 round of New gTLD Applications was governed by an immense set of policies and procedures as described in the Applicant Guide Book. An applicant, by making an application agreed to abide by the rules, and ICANN, in accepting the fee, also agreed to such rules. Among them was that once a complex set of criteria was met, ICANN would sign a Registry Agreement with the applicant. There was a lot of public involvement at many stages, but the actual signing of a contract did not (according to the rules establish with the overall community) did not require public input. Some decisions are controlled by contracts and in those cases, whatever is in the contract dictates how things happen. The release of two character strings at the 2nd level in new gTLDs was the subject of significant public comment, but was also subject to the agreement of the country or territory that has that string as a ccTLD-type string. It is within the realm of possibility that ICANN could adopt a policy by which every single contract and contract amendment. I am pretty sure there would not be a lot of support for such a proposition, and there would be a high cost of implementing it. But it could happen if there were a general will to make it so. Alan At 12/05/2016 12:09 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt 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
On 5/11/2016 11:14 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: there is nothing in the current policies that could compel .nyc, as a delegated TLD, to adopt such a policy other than voluntarily.
âThanks for your thoughtful and detailed response, Alan.
Tom, it does seem that your efforts might be better directed at stirring things up at a localâ level, but I think there has to be perceptible pain to get any movement.The tradeoffs between privacy, WHOIS and the nexus requirement might be a source of such pain. Currently, since proxy addresses are forbidden under the nexus policy, no private citizen in NYC can register a .nyc domain with revealing their personal address via WHOIS. The allocation and oversight of neighborhood reserved names, as per your recent meetup, is another.
j
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie <tel:218%20565%209365>218 565 9365 <Skype:punkcast>Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -