[Chapter-delegates] Multistakeholder governance - ISOC - and city-TLDs

[Thomas Lowenhaupt]

Konstantinos,

I've observed that ISOC does not involve itself with TLD efforts. But it 
is an education and research oriented Society. Fact based. Why would it 
exclude itself from engagement in exploring, for example, the use of the 
multistakeholder model's usage in cities? ISOC supports the 
multistakeholder model. While endorsing MSM for cities might currently 
be off track, encouraging research, exploration, communication, and a 
dialogue about its utility seems in line with ISOC's strategic and 
directional values. Maybe its right for some cities and not for others? 
Perhaps it is effective in the planning phase but not the operational? 
Maybe there's a tweak appropriate for cities? Maybe cities over 
3,000,000 population can benefit? Perhaps city TLDs should be used to 
advance regionalization?

So that I might understand possible barriers to ISOC involvement in this 
area, perhaps you can help me understand why "the Internet Society has 
not gotten involved in TLD efforts" historically.

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt

On 6/27/2013 10:07 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
> Dear Thomas
>
> many thanks for your email and apologies for the delay in responding -- I have been on various meetings and I am now catching up on emails.
>
> As you know, the Internet Society has been following the discussions on new gTLDs, having participated at the various ICANN meetings. Our engagement is more on a strategic and directional level. Historically, the Internet Society has not gotten involved in TLD efforts, so as not to preclude chapter members from engaging in such activities either through the ICANN structures or by running a ccTLD, as a separate entity or organisation. In particular, ISOC does not get involved in their business or policy decisions, nor has the Internet Society any strategy for Chapters to get involved in ccTLDs or for ccTLDs becoming more directly engaged with ISOC as an entity. The same thinking applies with respect to new gTLDs.  Therefore, our approach is of an observing  partner rather than becoming directly involved in TLD issues pursued by ISOC Chapters.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Best regards
>
> Konstantinos
>
>
> Konstantinos Komaitis
> Policy Advisor,
> Internet Society
> komaitis at isoc.org
> tel: +41 22 807 1453
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:53 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml at communisphere.com> wrote:
>
>> Konstantinos,
>> Paul Brigner suggested I contact you about generating a discussion on the appropriateness of the multistakeholder governance for city-TLDs.
>> By way of introduction, my involvement with city-TLDs, or more specifically the .nyc TLD, began in 2001 when a governance body on which I was serving resolved that the city should acquire and develop the .nyc TLD as a public interest resource. Jump 12 years to yesterday's Future of Internet Governance conference at Columbia University and a question I asked of the NTIA's Larry Strickling about the appropriateness of multistakeholder governance for city-TLDs. Larry'd just completed a speech in which he reiterated the U.S.'s support for MSG, and answered my query by indicating NTIA was extending MSG to the .us TLD and that it seemed appropriate for city TLDs as well.
>> During Paul's regular weekly teleconference today, I brought up the prospect of ISOC sponsoring a cross-city discussion about MSG. Paul suggested that you might have thoughts on the matter and that I connect. My thinking is:
>> 	• 38 cities have applied for TLDs. 16 of these have ISOC chapters.
>> 	• that cities are developing their TLD in silos - no sharing or learning taking place
>> 	• (my hunch is that city administrations are not aware of the difference between standard TLDs where more names sold = success and community TLDs where public benefit is the measure.)
>> 	• to my knowledge, the public is not involved with TLD planning, governance or best practice development in any cities
>> 	• MSG might be an appropriate model for cities
>> My hope is that we can bring a group of ISOC members from applicant cities together - initially on a Hangout or similar venue - to discuss extant public engagement in their cities, looking toward a more extensive sharing and development endeavor.
>> I heard yesterday that key name allocation actions were to take place in my city (New York) in October. It's my belief that at that point, if things proceed as they are now inclined, the public interest benefits of our TLD will be severely diminished, to the detriment of Internet users and the city as a whole.
>>
>> I'd like to discuss the prospect of bringing ISOC members from city-TLD applicants together to discuss MSG, perhaps as soon as next Friday.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Tom Lowenhaupt
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair
>> Connecting.nyc Inc.
>>   
>> tom at connectingnyc.org
>> Jackson Hts., NYC 11372
>> 718 639 4222
>>
>> Blog - Wiki - Web
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20130627/82a3c2cd/attachment.htm>