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 <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto: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.

​Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response, Alan.

Tom, it does seem that your efforts might be better directed at stirring things up at a local​ 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 218 565 9365 <tel:218%20565%209365> Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -

Alan, Comments in-line. On 5/12/2016 1:09 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

Your question presumes we are all left out of decision making processes. I do not agree.

Depends on who "we" is. Typically it those with the time an resources to participate that steer the decision-making process. And that seems to hold here.

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.

It's a bit of a paradox - for the insider there are too many meetings. For those outside that process there aren't enough, or at lease enough accessible meetings (in terms of awareness and time). It's been my experience that you've got to take this on as a full time job to be effective. For example, in a PDP-like process reviewing the new TLD experience I submitted the first comment to the group recommending that cities applying for TLDs in the future be required to demonstrate "informed consent." And I commented on this to the ICANN board of directors at a public meeting (perhaps in Buenos Aires). By the end of that process I couldn't find mention of my contribution in the official record (someone said it was in the appendix, but I couldn't find it). I see there's a new PDP starting on the process that will likely lead to additional TLDs being issued to cities. How do I get the ALAC to take up this task on behalf of IIUs in cities globally?

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.

But that didn't happen in these instances. 4 changes were made to the registry agreement without (to my knowledge) a single ALS or IIU (Individual Internet Users) in New York City aware of the impending changes or their possible impact and consequences.

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.

The RSEP process was set in 2004 when there was minimal input from ALAC and zero input from the 8,000,000 residents that comprise the New York City community. And now that process allows changes to the registry without any public engagement of the city's IIUs (or businesses, or schools, or or or). I can see the history of this and it is all quite normal. But saying that the ALAC can intervene and giving reasons why it hasn't is hardly reassuring.

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.

I've been having a conversation with my city council member about using these to benefit the various immigrant communities. Had Connecting.nyc Inc. been aware of change request, perhaps some additional action might have been taken.

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.

A simple notice about the proposed changes to the agreement and providing an opportunity to comment should not cripple ICANN's budget. How do we make this happen? Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. Tom Lowenhaupt

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 <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto: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.

​Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response, Alan.

Tom, it does seem that your efforts might be better directed at stirring things up at a local​ 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 218 565 9365 <tel:218%20565%209365> Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -

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@communisphere.com <mailto: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

​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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -

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@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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online athttp://www.naralo.org ------

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 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 <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? 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@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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online athttp://www.naralo.org ------

Alan, 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. 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? 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. Are you in agreement or have I missed something? Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 6/13/2016 3:59 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

.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 Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec <mailto: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 <toml@communisphere.com> <mailto: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? 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@isoc.quebec <mailto: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:

o "​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.

o "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@communisphere.com <mailto: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

​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@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

Tom,

If there were a ground swell of support for the 
concept that a geographic TLD must consult (or 
listen to) citizens on its geographic region, 
then the ALAC could certainly advise that this 
would be included if and when there are any new 
geographic TLDs are allocated. I have little 
confidence that this is something that would be 
accepted by ICANN, as it only allocates the TLD 
and according to its mission has little to do 
with how it is run. One exception is that if a 
commitment to do something (or not do something) 
is in the TLD contract, then ICANN may be in a 
position to ensure that the contract is honoured.

Even if ICANN would accept such a requirement to 
specify how geographic TLDs are managed, it would 
not change .nyc as the contracts are already 
signed and the only changes in this area that 
could alter the contract would be those 
voluntarily added by the City of New York.

If you want to accomplish that, it is in New York 
that you need to be convincing people that there 
is a problem that you can help fix.

Alan

At 13/06/2016 05:44 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:

>Alan,
>
>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. 
>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?
>
>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.
>
>Are you in agreement or have I missed something?
>
>Best,
>
>Tom Lowenhaupt
>
>On 6/13/2016 3:59 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>.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:
>>>>>>    * "​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 
>>>>> <<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
>>>>>
>>>>>        ​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>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    ------

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 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 Louis.Houle@isoc.quebec <mailto: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 <toml@communisphere.com> <mailto: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? 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@isoc.quebec <mailto: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:

o "​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.

o "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@communisphere.com <mailto: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

​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@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

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:
>>>>>>>    * "​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 
>>>>>> <<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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        ​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>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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    ------

Following up on the recent exchange here on NARALO Discuss, concerning the 4 changes to New York City's .nyc registry agreement, and my belief that modification to the extant operating processes were in order, today I reviewed the ICANN By-Laws <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#XI> as they relate to ALAC responsibilities. And it seems apparent that more should be done to keep New York City's individual Internet users informed and engaged about ICANN activities. I base this conclusion on my reading of Article XI, subsection 2.4.j which lists 10 responsibilities of ALAC. If one considers responsibilities 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10, one is likely to conclude that something fell through the cracks <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fall_through_the_cracks> in the 4 instances where the registry agreement was changed and the city's individual Internet users were not informed. "The ALAC is also responsible, working in conjunction with the RALOs, for coordinating the following activities: 1. Making a selection by the At-Large Community to fill Seat 15 on the Board. Notification of the At-Large Community's selection shall be given by the ALAC Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1). 2. *Keeping the community of individual Internet users informed about the significant news from **ICANN**;* 3. Distributing (through posting or otherwise) an updated agenda, news about ICANN, and information about items in the ICANN policy-development process; 4. *Promoting outreach activities in the community of individual Internet users;* 5. *Developing and maintaining on-going information and education programs, regarding **ICANN**and its work;* 6. *Establishing an outreach strategy about **ICANN**issues in each RALO's Region;* 7. Participating in the ICANN policy development processes and providing input and advice that accurately reflects the views of individual Internet users; 8. Making public, and analyzing, ICANN's proposed policies and its decisions and their (potential) regional impact and (potential) effect on individuals in the region; 9. Offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions among members of At-Large structures; and 10. *Establishing mechanisms and processes that enable two-way communication between members of At-Large Structures and those involved in **ICANN**decision-making, so interested individuals can share their views on pending **ICANN**issues."* Think about it... Between December 1, 2014 and March 31, 2016 four (4) changes were made to the .nyc registry agreement <https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/nyc-2014-01-23-en>. No effort was made to inform New York City's individual Internet users about these changes or their possible impact. After reading clauses 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 does anyone disagree with my conclusion, that more should be done to keep New York City's individual Internet users informed and engaged about ICANN activities? If there 's no disagreement, how do we move ahead to assure that ALAC responsibilities, as spelled out in Article XI of ICANN's By-Laws, are appropriately adhered to in the future? Sincerely, Tom Lowenhaupt

Joly, You asked about my cause for concern regarding the changes to the .nyc registry agreement. They are twofold. I’ve some specific concerns about the several changes to the .nyc registry that were undertaken without consulting New York City's individual Internet users. But I’ve broader concerns that center on a governance process that has excluded New York City’s individual Internet users (IIUs) from meaningful participation in scoping and imagining our city’s TLD in every phase of its development and ongoing operation. I review that situation below and conclude with some actions that might help correction the situation. But first, let me address your question about the changes to the .nyc registry agreement. * All Digit/Digit, Letter/Digit, and Digit/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels at the Second Level <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/spec5-amend-two-char-01dec14-en.pdf>(01 December 2014) This change seems quite reasonable to me. * Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/nyc/nyc-auth-ltr-ltr-26may15-en.pdf>(26 May 2015) This change also seems reasonable. However, with 1/2 our city's 8 million population foreign born, some might have submitted comments about domain names such as mx.nyc: perhaps suggesting that it be used to address the needs of New York City's 300,000 Mexican immigrants. Or perhaps some of the 800,000 residents with ties to the Dominican Republic would have had suggestions about do.nyc's potential to serve that community. But they (nor the Chinese, Nigerians, Bolivians, etc.) were never provided with that opportunity. One is left to wonder what might have emerged from the minds of those 4,000,000 foreign born and the other New Yorkers. * Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/nyc/nyc-auth-ltr-ltr-14mar16-en.pdf>(14 March 2016) My comments for the 4 2-character domains activated here (ac, in, na, vg) are similar to those authorized by the 26 May 2015 change above. But seeing the “in” domain name, and with my residence located in “Little India,” and long holding hope of one day traveling to that wonderful country, I dreamt about traveling there and finding a nyc.mumbai, nyc.chennai, or nyc.bangalore, and how they might ease navigation and add comfort to my visit. And on another level I wondered if these domain names might provide an opportunity to establish bilateral social, cultural, and economic exchanges between these great cities? * PDF <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/nyc/nyc-amend-1-pdf-31mar16-e...> With this change (which added 14 new RDDS fields to each domain name’s contact data) I'm curious about the impact it will have on the city's nexus policy. Nexus is a key .nyc feature that offers the potential to differentiate our city’s TLD from the 1000 competitors that strive to sell domain names to our residents and organizations. The policy was arrived at after much consideration and years of urging on our part. Had New York's independent Internet users been consulted here, it might have sparked a broader conversation about the nexus policy . For example, how well it is being enforced, its impact on privacy, how does registration transparency help or hinder name sales, etc. As well, it might have enabled a discussion about open data and bulk access to the registrant data, something the city has refused to share. Let me conclude these thoughts by reiterating that they are my individual concerns and not those of my fellow New Yorkers who were not offered the opportunity to comment on these matters. *Getting back to my broader concern… * When one considers that the city administration has never had a meaningful consultation with NYC's individual Internet users, not during the long process leading up to the submission of the application for the .nyc TLD, nor in the years since its submission, one wonders about how well the public interest is being served and the efficacy of the multistakeholder model, the foundation for Internet governance. And when one considers that there's no ongoing channel enabling New York’s IIUs to participate in a local, home grown, governance process, the At-Large must ask how well the .nyc TLD is advancing the public interest. **What**’s **to **be **done**?** Short term the following: * NARALO, then ALAC should pass a resolution calling for ICANN to redouble its efforts to facilitate engagement of New York City’s IIUs in considering registry changes that impact the operation of the .nyc TLD. (This policy might apply more broadly, e.g., to dotCities globally, but that’s subject to some research. See below.) o The resolution should require that ICANN staff immediately begin sending notifications to local At-Large Structures when the operator of a city-TLD in their realm makes application to modify a registry agreement. o The resolution should include a recommendation that these ALSes be provided with the opportunity to comment on all proposed changes to the registry agreement at traditional ICANN PDPs and locally at open public hearings. (Recognizing that a contract is in place, the ICANN should recommend that appropriate changes take place ASAP, noting that they will seek permanency upon renewal of the registry agreement.) * At-Large Structures located in other cities with TLDs should be asked to assess the level of engagement by IIUs in TLD policy development processes. If the engagement level is unsatisfactory, ICANN should work to facilitate more involvement by IIUs, working through ALSes when practicable. * In cities without At-Large Structures ICANN should determine the level of engagement by IIUs. In instances where it is found to be unsatisfactory, ICANN should seek remediation through the formation of effective At-Large Structures. Long term: * ICANN should require that cities applying for TLDs demonstrate in their applications that a suitable level of "informed consent" about a TLD’s potential role exists in the jurisdiction. * That participants in a multistakeholder environment have been appraised of the opportunities provided by a city-TLD and have been meaningfully engaged in the application’s development. * That cities applying for TLDs incorporate the opinions of residents and independent Internet users when preparing their applications. * That At-Large Structures or similar entities be created to enable long-term engagement by IIUs in the operation of the city-TLD. (Note, there's an obvious At-Large self-interest in such a resolution as it might provide a basis for future development of local At-Large structures.) I hope this answers your question. In support of the above I’d like to see if New York is alone in regard to the exclusion of IIUs from the city-TLD governance process. I’ve compiled two lists of cities that have been issued TLDs: those that have At-Large Structures (13) and those with ISOC chapters (22). There’s some overlap. I’ve begun a Google questionnaire to gather some info here <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1MO5f2u8aFMxnBEu3I6UICIjl0as12wKgzBMf3f3Hwg0...>. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. [_This invite applies to all, not just Joly._] Sincerely, Tom Lowenhaupt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 5/16/2016 1:41 AM, Internet Society - NY Chapter wrote:

Tom,

I apologize if I have not been duly diligent in this matter.

What in particular in the changes to the registry agreement is the cause for concern?

j

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml@communisphere.com <mailto:toml@communisphere.com>> wrote:

Following up on the recent exchange here on NARALO Discuss, concerning the 4 changes to New York City's .nyc registry agreement, and my belief that modification to the extant operating processes were in order, today I reviewed the ICANN By-Laws <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#XI> as they relate to ALAC responsibilities. And it seems apparent that more should be done to keep New York City's individual Internet users informed and engaged about ICANN activities.

I base this conclusion on my reading of Article XI, subsection 2.4.j which lists 10 responsibilities of ALAC. If one considers responsibilities 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10, one is likely to conclude that something fell through the cracks <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fall_through_the_cracks> in the 4 instances where the registry agreement was changed and the city's individual Internet users were not informed.

"The ALAC is also responsible, working in conjunction with the RALOs, for coordinating the following activities:

1. Making a selection by the At-Large Community to fill Seat 15 on the Board. Notification of the At-Large Community's selection shall be given by the ALAC Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1). 2. *Keeping the community of individual Internet users informed about the significant news from **ICANN**;* 3. Distributing (through posting or otherwise) an updated agenda, news about ICANN, and information about items in the ICANN policy-development process; 4. *Promoting outreach activities in the community of individual Internet users;* 5. *Developing and maintaining on-going information and education programs, regarding **ICANN**and its work;* 6. *Establishing an outreach strategy about **ICANN**issues in each RALO's Region;* 7. Participating in the ICANN policy development processes and providing input and advice that accurately reflects the views of individual Internet users; 8. Making public, and analyzing, ICANN's proposed policies and its decisions and their (potential) regional impact and (potential) effect on individuals in the region; 9. Offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions among members of At-Large structures; and 10. *Establishing mechanisms and processes that enable two-way communication between members of At-Large Structures and those involved in **ICANN**decision-making, so interested individuals can share their views on pending **ICANN**issues."*

Think about it... Between December 1, 2014 and March 31, 2016 four (4) changes were made to the .nyc registry agreement <https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/nyc-2014-01-23-en>. No effort was made to inform New York City's individual Internet users about these changes or their possible impact. After reading clauses 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 does anyone disagree with my conclusion, that more should be done to keep New York City's individual Internet users informed and engaged about ICANN activities?

If there 's no disagreement, how do we move ahead to assure that ALAC responsibilities, as spelled out in Article XI of ICANN's By-Laws, are appropriately adhered to in the future?

Sincerely,

Tom Lowenhaupt

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

On 16 May 2016 at 04:52, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml@communisphere.com> wrote:

Following up on the recent exchange here on NARALO Discuss, concerning the 4 changes to New York City's .nyc registry agreement, and my belief that modification to the extant operating processes were in order, today I reviewed the ICANN By-Laws <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#XI> as they relate to ALAC responsibilities. And it seems apparent that more should be done to keep New York City's individual Internet users informed and engaged about ICANN activities.

​I fervently disagree, both that "more should be done" and even defining what that "more" is. ​This is getting tiring. Every so often we see raised the issue of community involvement​ in .nyc. Every time the challenges, problems and bad assumption identified in the grievance is ignored. Then the discussion just drops, only to come back some time later raise the issue again as if it's brand new. I base this conclusion on my reading of Article XI, subsection 2.4.j which

lists 10 resp ​o​ ​​nsibilities of ALAC. If one considers responsibilities 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10, one is likely to conclude that something fell through the cracks <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fall_through_the_cracks> in the 4 instances where the registry agreement was changed and the city's individual Internet users were not informed.

​Quoting the ICANN bylaws is FAR from enough. I've been extremely close to those bylaws and have frequently made the case that ALAC under-utilized its authority on a number of occasions.

This is not one of those occasions.

Think about it... Between December 1, 2014 and March 31, 2016 four (4) changes were made to the .nyc registry agreement <https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/nyc-2014-01-23-en>. No effort was made to inform New York City's individual Internet users about these changes or their possible impact.

​ I thought about it. For a long time, a long time ago. BIG DEAL. I looked at the changes. They apply to the use of two-letter ​second-level domains and the collection of additional information on registrants to verify their legitimacy to use the domain.

​​ After reading clauses 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 does anyone disagree with my conclusion, that more should be done to keep New York City's individual Internet users informed and engaged about ICANN activities?

​ ​Specifically, what in the proposed changes does the end-user community of New York City (meaning some group of people significant larger then you alone) have a problem with? If your problem is with process rather than substance, it is my opinion that you're wasting our time. The registry for .nyc is the city government of New York, governed by elected representatives. Moreover, previously when you have raised issued related to .nyc you refuse to answer core questions that challenge what are IMO poor assumptions, and your refusal to provide satisfactory answers has crippled the credibility of your cause. - Given that you've been around the process for a while, you know that ALAC is a global body and its advice to ICANN is not country- (let alone city-)specific. Why, then, have you made no effort to engage in joint activity with other communities where city-TLDs exist, in order to facilitate creation of policy adaptable to a worldwide community? - If the effort has been made but no similar issues have been found at other cities with their own TLDs, that begs a different question: what's so special about the problems with .nyc, that makes it sufficiently worthy to demand attention from other regions and the global ALAC? In both theory and practice, ALAC advice to the Board is neither domain specific nor region specific. - After years of asking, I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the question "what is the end-user community interest, specifically, in the .nyc domain, that could not be served through a second-level domain?" ​ If there 's no disagreement, how do we move ahead to assure that ALAC

responsibilities, as spelled out in Article XI of ICANN's By-Laws, are appropriately adhered to in the future?

​Consider disagreement had. Tom, you've also been here long enough to know that ALAC volunteers are stretched beyond belief in just taking care of real fires. Since you appear to know the bylaws and ALAC's role so well, why don't you *propose* something rather than merely expect others to fight your battles for you? ​ In any case.... until you can demonstrate that ​(a) this is a globally relevant problem and (b) it indeed harms end users and (c) creative solutions have been tried and failed .... this is not yet NARALO's (let alone ALAC's) battle. Apologies to readers for what may have come across as overly harsh. But I'm honestly tired of this issue repeatedly advancing and receding, each time draining critical human energy better directed elsewhere. -- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56