Input on the Appropriate Role and Representation of Individual Internet Users
Dear ICANNI am writing this in my personal capacity as a privileged African Internet user with experience in both technical implementations of names and numbers and consumer rights policy development. I have 7 years of experience in contributing to ICANN policies and have spent over 3 working months (over 500 hours) in researching this specific issue of individual representation in ICANN.
Firstly, I believe that individuals who may not yet be Internet users also require some representation at ICANN and this group of disenfranchised should not be excluded and I believe that through the ALAC they are not excluded.
1. I do not agree with the approach contained in the WG-GCR proposal; mainly because I do not find it clear and it's complexity is in conflict with it's purpose. i.e. "a non-contracted party house" is itself too complicated for individuals to understand it's purpose... Further, I do not agree that such a party be inclusive of all individuals with an interest in the Internet as this is effectively duplication or replication/replacement of the At Large. This is too complicated.
2. I reject the WG-GCR approach and do agree with the BGC recommendation limiting GNSO membership to registrants – not a more expanded definition of individual Internet users; BUT I believe that such a group must co-exist with the At Large AND
3. I agree that the GNSO work with the ALAC, the broader At-Large community (and any new "non-commercial" constituencies the Board may approve) to jointly develop an implementation plan for the initial composition of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures that the individual Internet user's gTLD interests are effectively represented within the GNSO. This plan would be submitted for Board approval.
4. I agree with the NomCom independent evaluator's report recommended that the ALAC directly appoint two voting Board members (similar to the SO's Board appointments), in contrast to the ALAC independent evaluator's report, which recommended no change to the ALAC's appointment of one non-voting Board liaison.