Input on the Appropriate Role and Representation of Individual Internet Users

[Alan Levin <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear ICANN

I 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.
Sincerely,

Alan