AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities

This workspace has been made available for community members to post their GAC related questions.

Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 21 June 2013 23:59 UTC.

The questions/topics which will be proposed to the GAC, in no particular order, are:

  1. Geographic TLDs - the public Interest in the context of geographic TLDs - multistakeholder governance as best practice?
  2. Dotless Top Level Domains and other SSAC Advice - risk to the stability of the DNS
  3. Are Public Interest Commitments (PIC) that cannot be enforced useful?
  4. At-Large Introduction (structure, Regional At-Large Organisations (RALOs), At-Large Structures (ALSes) and an update on the ALAC Objections process)

Thanks for your input. This topic is now frozen.

  • No labels

3 Comments

  1. Thomas Lowenhaupt

    Note: This comment refers to city-TLDs based on the author's familiarity with that genre of TLD. It might also be appropriate for regional TLDs.

    Evolving perhaps from a long interest in TLDs assigned for use by nation-states (country code TLDs), the GAC has shown great care and concern about the new geographic TLDs for regions and cities. However, to date this concern has not extended to governance of those TLDs.

    In many instances TLD policy for city-TLDs has been set without informed public input. In many instances there are inexplicit, if any, provisions for public, business, or civic engagement proposed for the initial planning and ongoing governance of city-TLDs. There is no ICANN requirement for effective multi-stakeholder governance for the proposed city-TLDs.

    Does the GAC see a benefit in multi-stakeholder governance for those geographic areas represented by city-TLDs? With the efficacy of the multi-stakeholder model within Internet governance evermore apparent, let me presume the answer to this question is yes. Assuming so, will the GAC intercede on behalf of the people of its member cities and request that ICANN mandate multi-stakeholder governance plans of applicants for city-TLDs?

    Thomas Lowenhaupt, Member

    .NYC Advisory Board

    (http://www.nyc.gov/html/digital/html/industry/dotnyc.shtml)

    1. Olivier Crepin-Leblond

      Thank you for this suggestion, Tom. This will be included in the section about the running of geographic TLDs for the public interest.

  2. Rinalia Abdul Rahim

    For question 3, I suggest the following amendments:

    3. Public Interest Commitments (PIC) - how can the ALAC and the GAC work together to ensure the enforceability of the PIC?

    Rationale:  Both the ALAC and the GAC know that un-enforceable PIC is useless.  The issue is how to make them enforceable and that is more worthy of discussion.

     

    Rinalia