[ALAC] ALAC comments with respect to users and the GNSO

[Alan Greenberg]

Wendy, I don't know what time the Board meeting is, but hope that 
this reaches you before...

The ALAC has already made a number of statements on the role of users 
on the GNSO, and none of them (in our minds) conflict or even greatly 
overlap with the roles of the ALAC. These statements stand. In 
essence, the differentiator between someone (or group) that is at 
home in At-Large vs one who should live in the GNSO is not based on 
the description of the user (or user group), but rather on their 
specific interests. Participation in the GNSO implies a specific 
interest in gTLD policy issues, and implies a willingness to put 
significant energy and time into the creation of gTLD policies and 
related issues.

At-Large, has a wider scope and by definition has a more diffuse 
focus. We will never cover ALL ICANN issues, but attempt to address 
the ones that we believe have a higher impact on users.

There may well be organizations that fit both descriptions (although 
I don't think there will be many). There are certainly people 
participating in these organizations who may wear both hats at times. 
We would not like to see rules preventing these contributors from 
working in both domains. Particularly in the developing world, there 
are far to few skilled people with the interest and energy to address 
ICANN's domain, and we do not want to see people locked out for 
arbitrary reasons. Although the fear of capture is real, this is not 
likely the venue where it is problematic.

To the extent that "individuals" as opposed to organizations should 
participate in the GNSO, we have tended to prefer a definition of 
constituency close to the current model. That is, like-minded people 
form a constituency to put forward their viewpoint.

Two other issues were raised at the ALAC meeting which are not 
directly related to the user issue, but may be applicable to other 
Board discussions.

1. The concept of a "individual registrant" constituency is something 
that would be of value. However, it is not clear where this fits if 
the constituency does (and perhaps should) include both commercial 
and non-commercial members - it is easy to imagine that their views 
on many things will be similar, and it is not at all clear that 
dividing them over two SG serves any purpose.

2. The current description of the proposed Business Constituency 
seems to focus on the concept of a member having to be incorporated, 
which seem to exclude many of the small entrepreneurs who comprise 
the new model of Internet-based businesses (perhaps embodied  by the 
example of a typical e-Bay seller).

Alan