ICANN participation

(Revised to correct typo.)

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 too few skilled people with the interest and energy to
address issues in 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

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac